dmiessler.com | grep understanding - Latest Comments in Are the Religious More Logical Than I Think?

Re: Are the Religious More Logical Than I Think?

cooperati — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 01:43:25 -0000

I tip my hat to you, sir.

(It can be a fun debate.)

-=T=-

Re: Are the Religious More Logical Than I Think?

Josh — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 22:09:15 -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.

Re: Are the Religious More Logical Than I Think?

icepyro — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 21:12:21 -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.

Re: Are the Religious More Logical Than I Think?

Earl Grey — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 16:04:23 -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.

Re: Are the Religious More Logical Than I Think?

CarlM — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 14:09:14 -0000

Bingo. (And an improved world economy.)

Re: Are the Religious More Logical Than I Think?

Daniel Miessler — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 11:58:06 -0000

Ah, the solution... :)

Here we agree. It's education.

Re: Are the Religious More Logical Than I Think?

CarlM — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 10:57:26 -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 isn't 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.

Re: Are the Religious More Logical Than I Think?

Daniel Miessler — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 10:21:07 -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.

Re: Are the Religious More Logical Than I Think?

CarlM — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 10:04:50 -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.

Re: Are the Religious More Logical Than I Think?

CarlM — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 09:51:42 -0000

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

Re: Are the Religious More Logical Than I Think?

Daniel Miessler — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 09:45:23 -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.

Re: Are the Religious More Logical Than I Think?

brooksgarrett — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 09:07:05 -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.

Re: Are the Religious More Logical Than I Think?

CarlM — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 09:04:17 -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/wik...

Re: Are the Religious More Logical Than I Think?

Daniel Miessler — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 08:48:07 -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.onstreamm...

Are you arguing that this isn't dangerous?

Re: Are the Religious More Logical Than I Think?

Maxolasersquad — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 08:04:20 -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.

Re: Are the Religious More Logical Than I Think?

CarlM — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 08:03:11 -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.)

Re: Are the Religious More Logical Than I Think?

Daniel Miessler — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 00:19:46 -0000

> If the LOGIC of your argument doesn't work in all situations, then the LOGIC is faulty.

Really, Carl? Really? Are you really taking that line? Here are a few for you that also fall into that category:

* It's hard to be a heroin user and become a CEO.
* It's not good to punch your boss in the face if you want a promotion.
* Tall people are better at Basketball
* People with higher IQs make more money

All of these things are true, and all of them have MANY exceptions. We're not talking about scientific theories here, where a single disagreeing datapoint shows that the theory is incorrect.

Or, even better, we CAN show that relativity is wrong in some cases, yet it's still in an invaluable tool for understanding our universe. 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.

Re: Are the Religious More Logical Than I Think?

cooperati — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 23:34:45 -0000

Exactly the purist's point of view!

Although, you've conveniently rationalized a loophole in the Bible that exists as a construct of this very limiting perspective.

Can the Bible be no more than what you describe, or MUST it ONLY be 100% right?

It's like putting a celebrity on a pedestal so high he can only let you down by not living up to the legend he's made out to be. The Bible is simple. It descends through time from the edge of prehistory, from a barbaric people through many cultures ...

... until now.

lol!

-=T=-

Re: Are the Religious More Logical Than I Think?

CarlM — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 23:33:23 -0000

Ahh .. it is becoming clearer. You don't accept that some religious people are religious. You're defining "religious" differently than the rest of us (or than dictionaries).

This makes it difficult to communicate effectively.

(Yes, I know I'm putting words in your mouth. I'm tired and am going to sleep now.)

Re: Are the Religious More Logical Than I Think?

CarlM — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 23:29:38 -0000

I didn't say that you didn't PROPOSE cause and effect. This isn't the same thing as SHOWING cause and effect.

"Once that hurdle has been crossed it's much easier to accept further nonsense (and to embrace more extreme versions of the same concepts)." This is EXACTLY the "gateway drug" argument. So, I must assume that you accept that argument too (though I think that you probably don't).

If the LOGIC of your argument doesn't work in all situations, then the LOGIC is faulty.

The fact that heroin users started smoking when they were 10 doesn't mean that kids who smoke when they are 10 will become heroin users. Similarly, the fact that there are people who are BOTH religious AND nutcases does not imply that they are nutcases BECAUSE of their religion. There are plenty of nutcases among atheists.

"It's our inability to criticize that which doesn't have merit in reality that is dangerous, as it provides a fertile breeding ground for the far more dangerous strains of religion."

Criticize all you wish. But if you want to make a logical argument for cause and effect, you must work harder. Restrict your premises to things that are demonstrably true. Use careful logic as you proceed, and don't be fooled into believing that your arguments are stronger than they are simply because you already believe the conclusion at which you are heading.

Re: Are the Religious More Logical Than I Think?

Daniel Miessler — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 23:13:54 -0000

My point is that if you don't accept what's in the books, then you're doing your own thing. Period. Fundamentalists are the real believers. Everyone else has either built their own thing based on being uncomfortable with the real teachings or being too lazy to learn them.

Re: Are the Religious More Logical Than I Think?

Daniel Miessler — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 23:12:45 -0000

I've not shown cause and effect?

The cause is the pre-existing environment of fantasy-acceptance. Once that hurdle has been crossed it's much easier to accept further nonsense (and to embrace more extreme versions of the same concepts).

That's the cause and effect.

Acceptance and tolerance of moderate religion gives instant legitimacy and protection to more extreme versions of commonly held beliefs. This is simply because even the moderates believe some highly outlandish things, and it's not much of a stretch to go further.

It's our inability to criticize that which doesn't have merit in reality that is dangerous, as it provides a fertile breeding ground for the far more dangerous strains of religion.

Re: Are the Religious More Logical Than I Think?

CarlM — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 23:00:31 -0000

"Very few "worldly" justifications exist for exterminating people on that scale." Very few "religious" justifications exist for exterminating people on that scale.

Re: Are the Religious More Logical Than I Think?

CarlM — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 22:58:52 -0000

"This is the same thing as saying, "people don't kill people, THE LAWS of PHYSICS kill people." In other words, there's always a way to get more direct than a given cause, but doing so only obfuscates the true cause."

I agree. So I assume that you'd be OK if I said "Guns don't kill people, people with ACCESS to guns kill people." (The guy who killed his family didn't strangle them. At least in the US you hardly ever hear of a mass murder / suicide where it isn't a gun or guns being used.) You're argument seems to reply on the assumption that without religion there is no motive for huge mass murder. I don't accept this premise.

"The point here is that taking the lives of both yourself and the millions of men, women, and children in a city REQUIRES a certain state of mind, and that state of mind is most likely to be found in a religious person." Daniel, most people in the world are religious. So let's say that 1 in 6,000,000 people have this insanely murderous frame of mind .. and could actually be capable of carrying something like this out. Then there are approximately 1000 such people in the world. If they are scattered randomly throughout the world (suppose it is a mental defect that is due to a random mutation) then most of the 1000 would be religious simply because most people in the world are religious. This doesn't prove cause and effect.

I know what you're thinking. "Carl, that's not what I meant. I meant that this mindset is DISPROPORTIONALLY likely to be found in a religious person." I'm just not convinced. The Holocaust (a pretty BIG example of mass murder) was NOT inspired by the sort of religious insanity that you're talking about here.

"Most importantly, this requisite state of mind almost necessitates the belief that there will be something better in a next life, or that the creator of the universe actually WANTS this to happen, in order to go through with it." Once again, the Holocaust is a counterexample. (I know you said "almost" to cover your butt, but this is a pretty big counterexample.)

"Would THEY use a weapon that would kill everyone in the United States in one shot? Yes, they probably would." Daniel, I love science fiction, but keep it out of these arguments. Would they use such a weapon? Maybe. (But I'd point out that such a weapon doesn't exist. They can't destroy civilization if the means to do so doesn't even exist.)

Daniel, I am not a believer that morality belongs ONLY to religious people, but I am a believer that there are MANY very moral religious people .. some of whom maintain their morality BECAUSE of their religious beliefs. You may find them delusional, but they are MORAL.

"That's where religion comes in. It provides a view of the world in which normal humans (i.e. not Pol Pot or Stalin) could actually take millions of lives and feel good about it." I'm honestly confused here. Stalin is not a normal human .. because he was an atheist who killed? .. because he was a leader and had "extra" power because of this? You mean "ordinary citizen" ?

I guess part of the reason that I'm so concerned that you are barking up the wrong tree because I think that a focus on religion will not make the world a safer place. I think it's entirely the wrong focus.

You will NOT "cure" humanity of this "affliction," but it is possible to lessen the desire of people to harm the US. You think this is about the US being a country of infidels? It's not. We have not done a good job of handling our international relationships. We have done things that have contributed to the hate that people have for us. Let's address the things that can be addressed.

Are there religious nutcases out there? Yes. Is it their religion that made them nutcases? You've not shown cause and effect, and I don't believe it's there. Did religion make it easier for others to brainwash them so as to USE them for their own (entirely non-religious) political goals? Yeah, maybe. But a distinction is often made in the US between a cult and a religion. Perhaps this distinction is an important one in the current discussion.

http://www.faithresource.co...

I know that when you read the description on that page you will assert that ALL religions fall under the definition of cult on that page. But you are wrong. This is what I've been trying to tell you. You do not fully understand the nature of religion.

... I'm getting tired and this is long enough for now.

Re: Are the Religious More Logical Than I Think?

Daniel Miessler — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 22:39:39 -0000

Come on. Stay with me here...

Do you really think that once someone is willing to kill, they're willing to kill on any scale? No. That's absurd. Being able to kill people you know after seeing your wife with another man is COMPLETELY different from being able to kill an entire city full of people, or a race of people, etc.

The former is quite common and doesn't require much other than human nature. The easiest way to get the latter, however, is to have religious beliefs. Very few "worldly" justifications exist for exterminating people on that scale.