Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is yet another clarion call to folks to stop being so one dimensional. The study doesn't say belief is better because it is correlated with moral concern, and the study doesn't say non-belief is better because it is correlated with analytical thinking. What the study is saying is that the best path forward is an integration of analytical thinking and moral concern.
[Emphasis added.]
That's fair enough where matters such as morality are concerned
You're doing precisely what I outlined was the problem. Integration means that morality and analytical thinking both always apply. They are properly always both tempered one by the other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
but, where validated evidence comes into it 'dogmatism' isn't the issue.
Yes it is. Dogmatic atheists are worse than dogmatic religionists in that they have this belief that objective evidence trumps morality. It doesn't. It informs morality, just as morality informs the implications of evidence.
And when we're talking about morality, remember that we're talking about empathy, consideration for other people, kindness; we're not talking about silly, pedantic rules (i.e., dogmatic religion).
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
So those who prefer Faith to reason have simply surrendered any claim to credibility.
I hope you see how the one-dimensional perspective that you just expressed similarly surrendered any claim to legitimacy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupper3
I mostly agree with your analysis, except that as science is not a belief system
Yet dogmatic atheists behave as if it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupper3
It is difficult to reconcile those two perspectives.
And evidently dogmatic atheists are too lazy to do the work necessary to reconcile the two perspectives, and instead choose to be, literally, inhumane.
Yes it is. Dogmatic atheists are worse than dogmatic religionists in that they have this belief that objective evidence trumps morality. It doesn't. It informs morality, just as morality informs the implications of evidence.
Dogmatic atheists?
You could say I'm dogmatic I suppose. For example I am convinced that two plus two makes four. There is nothing you can say or do to shake that 'belief'. Does that count as being dogmatic?
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,942,152 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
You're doing precisely what I outlined was the problem. Integration means that morality and analytical thinking both always apply. They are properly always both tempered one by the other.
Yes it is. Dogmatic atheists are worse than dogmatic religionists in that they have this belief that objective evidence trumps morality. It doesn't. It informs morality, just as morality informs the implications of evidence.
And when we're talking about morality, remember that we're talking about empathy, consideration for other people, kindness; we're not talking about silly, pedantic rules (i.e., dogmatic religion).
I hope you see how the one-dimensional perspective that you just expressed similarly surrendered any claim to legitimacy.
Yet dogmatic atheists behave as if it is.
And evidently dogmatic atheists are too lazy to do the work necessary to reconcile the two perspectives, and instead choose to be, literally, inhumane.
A good quote is, you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Science is agnostic as to the results, it just reports them. Faith holders on the other hand, try to find all sort of convoluted ways to make facts fit their philosophy, and if they can't, try and invent some. Science is honest about its process.Faith? Not always.
I see things such as the above no different than what Hitler did in getting people to accept that the Jews were a vastly inferior race and should be exterminated. People will believe the findings of the original post because they lack the ability to be analytical.
It may very well be an effect of the indoctrination rather than some innate trait. My critical thinking skills suck because of the way they trained my brain. Someone recommended a course in critical thinking for me to help undo it.
That is kind of the point to wanting to put religions to the test in a public way. If people really thought you were born that way there would be no point in trying to change what is happening.
This may seem strange, but while I'm nonreligious, I kind of admire young people (I work with college students) who are religious. Just because they're going against the whole US popular culture, and consciously not choosing the most obvious sides to take on political issues.
I sort of think they do know how to think for themselves, and they'll be less herd-like later in life than lots of the knee-jerk liberal parrots. (I'm liberal).
This may seem strange, but while I'm nonreligious, I kind of admire young people (I work with college students) who are religious. Just because they're going against the whole US popular culture, and consciously not choosing the most obvious sides to take on political issues.
I sort of think they do know how to think for themselves, and they'll be less herd-like later in life than lots of the knee-jerk liberal parrots. (I'm liberal).
admiration for contrarians (specially positive ones) is probably a common human trait. But the majority of the US population is religious... but being as religions tend to hate each other due to competition and contradiction, popular culture can't hope to be too popular by supporting anything too specific. Even a lot of the religious hate religion trying to control everything. Your college students will probably grow into being more and more herd-like given human nature, once you have children you tend to question things less and grab to religion more, and once you get closer to golden years and death you also tend to not want to wrestle with thoughts as much, and want to be a lot more hopeful in immortality and such, so you grab on to religion more. (I think most studies find that these are accurate and significant average realities).
Last edited by LuminousTruth; 04-02-2016 at 01:39 AM..
The difference is not rooted in the mind but through the spirit , as the very presence of God on a true believer will be proof that God is the creator as believed , where has people who snub their nose at God will never have a experience of knowing the presence of God and then will lean toward the natural logic of science ...............See God will never show Himself to the faithless , as it is His number one rule for God ........ Just like demons and devil will never show themselves as they would give people a belief in God if they would show themselves in any way as their presence would be proof For God which they hate ...........So the unfaithful people of the world will be blinded of the realms of the spirit, as science will not go there outside of the physical reality
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
