4 ms·

This pathologizing of religion is too self-serving and deserves some skepticism. For one thing, it lacks a sufficient explanation for the scientific/mathematic

This pathologizing of religion is too self-serving and deserves some skepticism. For one thing, it lacks a sufficient explanation for the scientific/mathematical contributions and intellect of people with religious/supernatural belief; people such as Donald Knuth, Isaac Newton, Adam Smith, Euler, Pascal, and so on. For another, it conflates beliefs with mental habits. The point with empirical science, or math, or any other such discipline is the adherence to a set of intellectual practices rather than a particular set of conclusions that may (or may not) result from employing those practices. Now beliefs are important, but at least for empirical science the usual criteria is that a belief be held only insofar as it is useful. Holding to the Physical Causal Closure (PCC) principle can be quite useful for investigating natural phenomenon, but plenty of intelligent people have been willing to break from it when they think it will help explain other aspects of life. Of course, the PCC principle is not the result of research in empirical science, but rather its beginning. It is itself a philosophical, pre-scientific thesis, and should be dealt with as such. Incidentally, it is because of observations like these that Positivism is no longer a widely accepted philosophy. Lastly, it is frankly uncharitable. What's more likely, that most of the world is brain-damaged and/or mentally stunted, or that you are oversimplifying the issues?

Udo 13y ago
It may be due to the advancing night here in Germany, and I don't mean to insult you personally, but this seems like an uninteresting discussion to have about things that can be readily looked up and/or reasoned about without me doing a lot of pointing. Nevertheless: it's possible for a scientist to be completely wrong about most things, and yet produce valid scientific theories. Only when superstition and science collide directly, work usually suffers. Otherwise cognitive dissonance works pretty well. You also have to keep in mind that historical figures had a different cultural outlook than we do today, and I'm boring myself as I write this. Uncharitable may well be a fair charge, I take it. Other things that don't rank high on my list of credibility indicators are: the number of people believing something, and the social authority of the people believing it. This is all incredibly obvious historical baggage we're carrying around from a time when the goat was the pinnacle of technical achievement. However arrogant this may seem to you, I think a bit of brutal honesty is in order. However, having said that, I'm fully aware that no amount of argumentation can convince a believer (see my other comments on how religion closes that avenue after it infects a brain). I'm sorry if all that sounds pompous, arrogant, or just plain stupid to you. At a very fundamental level, religious and secular people might never be able to have a meaningful discussion about the nature of the world. It's probably for the best that we usually maneuver around these black holes on HN.
- lliamander 13y ago
  >At a very fundamental level, religious and secular people might never be able to have a meaningful discussion about the nature of the world. It's probably for the best that we usually maneuver around these black holes on HN. There are better places for such discussion. However, I consider it a general rule that in all hangouts for intellectually curious people, if you flippantly say something controversial, expect to be challenged. >However, having said that, I'm fully aware that no amount of argumentation can convince a believer (see my other comments on how religion closes that avenue after it infects a brain). I'm sorry if all that sounds pompous, arrogant, or just plain stupid to you. I am not primarily arguing to convince you, but for the benefit of observers who are not as personally involved in our exchange. Besides, I think you are probably a thoughtful and intelligent person, and as such I would not expect you to be convinced of something over the course of a debate. Rather, if you did change your mind it would be on your own time and after much reflection. I am sorry, however, that you believe religion is a incurable mind virus. Perhaps if you did not believe as you do, then you would take a different approach with your arguments. >Other things that don't rank high on my list of credibility indicators are: the number of people believing something, and the social authority of the people believing it. This, in and of itself, doesn't make you any different than a conspiracy theorist. I don't mean to say that you are one, and I don't necessarily hold authority or consensus very highly myself, just that rejecting them doesn't tell me much about your rationality. Regardless, my point was not that you should believe something because a lot of people, some of whom were pretty smart, also believed it. More about my actual point below. >Nevertheless: it's possible for a scientist to be completely wrong about most things, and yet produce valid scientific theories. Only when superstition and science collide directly, work usually suffers. Otherwise cognitive dissonance works pretty well. You also have to keep in mind that historical figures had a different cultural outlook than we do today, and I'm boring myself as I write this. OK, my point: cognitive dissonance is a pretty different phenomenon from infection by a memetic parasite. Your claim was that religion "has evolved to competitively inhibit the brain's logical and moral facilities" and that it "poisons the ability to freely reason about data specifically and the environment generally". If people with religious belief were so inhibited in their logical facilities, and could not freely reason about data or the environment, we would not expect them to be able to make mathematical, scientific, or technological advancements. They clearly have, and they continue to do so despite the cultural outlook of today (Knuth, for instance, is still alive). Furthermore, when I talk about the large number of people who are religious, I am not saying "it's silly to think so many people are wrong"; I am saying "it's silly to think so many people are mentally handicapped". Especially since so many of these people are able to contribute to business, the arts, the sciences, etc. Now, I am not saying that you are stupid, or handicapped (Indeed, your HN profile and web site indicate the opposite). Just that your thesis is bad psychology. >I think a bit of brutal honesty is in order. You will find that, in this, we are in agreement.
regnum 13y ago
The people you mention came before the theory of evolution. I doubt any of them would be believers if they had that info.

Udo 13y ago

It may be due to the advancing night here in Germany, and I don't mean to insult you personally, but this seems like an uninteresting discussion to have about things that can be readily looked up and/or reasoned about without me doing a lot of pointing. Nevertheless: it's possible for a scientist to be completely wrong about most things, and yet produce valid scientific theories. Only when superstition and science collide directly, work usually suffers. Otherwise cognitive dissonance works pretty well. You also have to keep in mind that historical figures had a different cultural outlook than we do today, and I'm boring myself as I write this. Uncharitable may well be a fair charge, I take it. Other things that don't rank high on my list of credibility indicators are: the number of people believing something, and the social authority of the people believing it. This is all incredibly obvious historical baggage we're carrying around from a time when the goat was the pinnacle of technical achievement. However arrogant this may seem to you, I think a bit of brutal honesty is in order. However, having said that, I'm fully aware that no amount of argumentation can convince a believer (see my other comments on how religion closes that avenue after it infects a brain). I'm sorry if all that sounds pompous, arrogant, or just plain stupid to you. At a very fundamental level, religious and secular people might never be able to have a meaningful discussion about the nature of the world. It's probably for the best that we usually maneuver around these black holes on HN.

lliamander 13y ago
>At a very fundamental level, religious and secular people might never be able to have a meaningful discussion about the nature of the world. It's probably for the best that we usually maneuver around these black holes on HN. There are better places for such discussion. However, I consider it a general rule that in all hangouts for intellectually curious people, if you flippantly say something controversial, expect to be challenged. >However, having said that, I'm fully aware that no amount of argumentation can convince a believer (see my other comments on how religion closes that avenue after it infects a brain). I'm sorry if all that sounds pompous, arrogant, or just plain stupid to you. I am not primarily arguing to convince you, but for the benefit of observers who are not as personally involved in our exchange. Besides, I think you are probably a thoughtful and intelligent person, and as such I would not expect you to be convinced of something over the course of a debate. Rather, if you did change your mind it would be on your own time and after much reflection. I am sorry, however, that you believe religion is a incurable mind virus. Perhaps if you did not believe as you do, then you would take a different approach with your arguments. >Other things that don't rank high on my list of credibility indicators are: the number of people believing something, and the social authority of the people believing it. This, in and of itself, doesn't make you any different than a conspiracy theorist. I don't mean to say that you are one, and I don't necessarily hold authority or consensus very highly myself, just that rejecting them doesn't tell me much about your rationality. Regardless, my point was not that you should believe something because a lot of people, some of whom were pretty smart, also believed it. More about my actual point below. >Nevertheless: it's possible for a scientist to be completely wrong about most things, and yet produce valid scientific theories. Only when superstition and science collide directly, work usually suffers. Otherwise cognitive dissonance works pretty well. You also have to keep in mind that historical figures had a different cultural outlook than we do today, and I'm boring myself as I write this. OK, my point: cognitive dissonance is a pretty different phenomenon from infection by a memetic parasite. Your claim was that religion "has evolved to competitively inhibit the brain's logical and moral facilities" and that it "poisons the ability to freely reason about data specifically and the environment generally". If people with religious belief were so inhibited in their logical facilities, and could not freely reason about data or the environment, we would not expect them to be able to make mathematical, scientific, or technological advancements. They clearly have, and they continue to do so despite the cultural outlook of today (Knuth, for instance, is still alive). Furthermore, when I talk about the large number of people who are religious, I am not saying "it's silly to think so many people are wrong"; I am saying "it's silly to think so many people are mentally handicapped". Especially since so many of these people are able to contribute to business, the arts, the sciences, etc. Now, I am not saying that you are stupid, or handicapped (Indeed, your HN profile and web site indicate the opposite). Just that your thesis is bad psychology. >I think a bit of brutal honesty is in order. You will find that, in this, we are in agreement.

regnum 13y ago

The people you mention came before the theory of evolution. I doubt any of them would be believers if they had that info.