Religion and Thinking (for JAK and others)

[_Jersey Girl]

JAK,

My reply here might not be what you had in mind when you wrote your recent posts, but it is what's on my mind. As you know, although I am no longer affiliated with my church of many years, I remain a "God believer". Not so many years ago, I would have taken offense to your remarks. I no longer do and this is why.

When a person is "raised up" in a church like I was, religious training/instruction/indoctrination begins early on. A child is taught (in a majority of Christian churches) certain underlying "truths" about the nature of God and their relationship to God. These "truths" are embedded in songs and children's Bible stories. Older children are taught more complex Bible stories without any cross referencing and encouraged to memorize verses of scripture. This is largely the reason that I can call to memory a number of Bible verses, you're reading the post of a former "Memory Verse Contest" winner! (no applause please)

In church we used to have "Sword Drills". The Pastor would call out a Bible ref and we'd race to find it. Of course this had to do with learning how to navigate the Bible.

In my experience, in adult Bible study classes there was (1) a chapter by chapter study of one book, (2) a focus on a specific Bible figure, (3) a focus on a series of writings by one author (Paul for example), (4) focus on isolated issues such as "creation".

When your path and mine first intersected, I had not long before that attended a presentation by the ICR. Infact, the first post I ever made online was in reference to the ICR. I remember sitting in church listening to the presenter thinking that it all sounded too slick, somewhat akin to the pitch of a used car salesman. He talked too fast. Made too many jokes. So I took the "material" from the presentation and tried to use it in online debate. Following that, much decimating of the material took place!

It was either prior or after that presentation in our adult Bible study on Genesis that the teacher raised similiar issues from the Creation account. People batted around speculation as if in awe of the potential wonder of what the answers might be, but the questions were never answered.

Yes, I'm going somewhere with this.

In our churches, we are not taught to think. We are taught to believe. Those first assertions presented to us as children are presented layer upon layer upon layer, each experience reinforcing the previous.

The "danger" of religion, extreme fundamentalism not withstanding, is to our intellect. We are taught to search the scriptures to seek answers via proof texting, but we are not taught to think outside of the Bible. We are taught to wonder without question. That is not to say that God believers aren't intelligent.

The danger to the intellect is in not allowing the use of our reasoning abilities to function within the framework of our religious belief and not just outside of it. You might not agree that one can apply critical thinking and still remain a believer. I think we can.

Not long ago on this board, I asked you if you thought a believer could also be a skeptic. You answered in the affirmative.

I think that after all these years, being put through the intellectual wringer by certain online personalities who shall remain nameless (you) that I have become a believing skeptic. I don't see that as wrong, conflicted or incongruent. I also don't agree that people like me who you and others might describe as "cafeteria Christians" are doing anything wrong but rather, doing everything right in terms of putting to full use our own intellect to the extent that we are each able.

I do know that as a result of the intellectual wringer, something has changed about my thinking. Not the status of my belief, but the nature of my ability to think. Were it not for that, I would still be spouting "bumper stickers" instead of trying to think my way through a situation. Where I previously might have accepted a religion related statement at face value, I'm more inclined to research whatever issue has been raised in that type of statement.

Back to intellectual dangers in general. I think that when a believer fails to engage their intellect within the framework of their religious belief they are missing so much of what they assume they know and believe. I'm thinking in terms of coming to a better understanding of scripture instead of simply passively receiving it and spouting it, we should engage it.

When one is taught to believe without thinking, there is the possibility of that long term practice of intellectual disconnect bleeding over into other areas of one's life.

What do you think? Do you think that a life time spent in organized religion has the potential to impact a person's ability to think?

Jersey Girl

[_marg]

I responded to this here http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?p=130111&highlight=#130111

I enjoyed your post.

[_Jersey Girl]

I responded to this here http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?p=130111&highlight=#130111

I enjoyed your post.

Thank you, marg. I have read it and will respond there. The OP here is nearly a duplicate with only some modification.

[_Imwashingmypirate]

We call that a scripture chase.

I find this quite difficutl because I am in several minds of several things at the moment and am going around in circles. It is hard to know for sure what to believe. I do beleive that religion in some way hinders knowledge. In fact I greatly believe that. Most people that are indoctrinated cannot see the other side and vise versa. They will stick to what they have been told and not accept anything else. It is really quite sad that people envoke selective hearing.

Pirate.

[_JAK]

JAK,

My reply here might not be what you had in mind when you wrote your recent posts, but it is what's on my mind. As you know, although I am no longer affiliated with my church of many years, I remain a "God believer". Not so many years ago, I would have taken offense to your remarks. I no longer do and this is why.

When a person is "raised up" in a church like I was, religious training/instruction/indoctrination begins early on. A child is taught (in a majority of Christian churches) certain underlying "truths" about the nature of God and their relationship to God. These "truths" are embedded in songs and children's Bible stories. Older children are taught more complex Bible stories without any cross referencing and encouraged to memorize verses of scripture. This is largely the reason that I can call to memory a number of Bible verses, you're reading the post of a former "Memory Verse Contest" winner! (no applause please)

In church we used to have "Sword Drills". The Pastor would call out a Bible ref and we'd race to find it. Of course this had to do with learning how to navigate the Bible.

In my experience, in adult Bible study classes there was (1) a chapter by chapter study of one book, (2) a focus on a specific Bible figure, (3) a focus on a series of writings by one author (Paul for example), (4) focus on isolated issues such as "creation".

When your path and mine first intersected, I had not long before that attended a presentation by the ICR. Infact, the first post I ever made online was in reference to the ICR. I remember sitting in church listening to the presenter thinking that it all sounded too slick, somewhat akin to the pitch of a used car salesman. He talked too fast. Made too many jokes. So I took the "material" from the presentation and tried to use it in online debate. Following that, much decimating of the material took place!

It was either prior or after that presentation in our adult Bible study on Genesis that the teacher raised similiar issues from the Creation account. People batted around speculation as if in awe of the potential wonder of what the answers might be, but the questions were never answered.

Yes, I'm going somewhere with this.

In our churches, we are not taught to think. We are taught to believe. Those first assertions presented to us as children are presented layer upon layer upon layer, each experience reinforcing the previous.

The "danger" of religion, extreme fundamentalism not withstanding, is to our intellect. We are taught to search the scriptures to seek answers via proof texting, but we are not taught to think outside of the Bible. We are taught to wonder without question. That is not to say that God believers aren't intelligent.

The danger to the intellect is in not allowing the use of our reasoning abilities to function within the framework of our religious belief and not just outside of it. You might not agree that one can apply critical thinking and still remain a believer. I think we can.

Not long ago on this board, I asked you if you thought a believer could also be a skeptic. You answered in the affirmative.

I think that after all these years, being put through the intellectual wringer by certain online personalities who shall remain nameless (you) that I have become a believing skeptic. I don't see that as wrong, conflicted or incongruent. I also don't agree that people like me who you and others might describe as "cafeteria Christians" are doing anything wrong but rather, doing everything right in terms of putting to full use our own intellect to the extent that we are each able.

I do know that as a result of the intellectual wringer, something has changed about my thinking. Not the status of my belief, but the nature of my ability to think. Were it not for that, I would still be spouting "bumper stickers" instead of trying to think my way through a situation. Where I previously might have accepted a religion related statement at face value, I'm more inclined to research whatever issue has been raised in that type of statement.

Back to intellectual dangers in general. I think that when a believer fails to engage their intellect within the framework of their religious belief they are missing so much of what they assume they know and believe. I'm thinking in terms of coming to a better understanding of scripture instead of simply passively receiving it and spouting it, we should engage it.

When one is taught to believe without thinking, there is the possibility of that long term practice of intellectual disconnect bleeding over into other areas of one's life.

What do you think? Do you think that a life time spent in organized religion has the potential to impact a person's ability to think?

Jersey Girl

Jersey Girl,

Near the conclusion of your comment you stated:

“I do know that as a result of the intellectual wringer, something has changed about my thinking. Not the status of my belief, but the nature of my ability to think. Were it not for that, I would still be spouting "bumper stickers" instead of trying to think my way through a situation. Where I previously might have accepted a religion related statement at face value, I'm more inclined to research whatever issue has been raised in that type of statement.

Back to intellectual dangers in general. I think that when a believer fails to engage their intellect within the framework of their religious belief they are missing so much of what they assume they know and believe. I'm thinking in terms of coming to a better understanding of scripture instead of simply passively receiving it and spouting it, we should engage it.

When one is taught to believe without thinking, there is the possibility of that long term practice of intellectual disconnect bleeding over into other areas of one's life.

What do you think? Do you think that a life time spent in organized religion has the potential to impact a person's ability to think?”

++++++++++

JAK:
I applaud your post and observations in the post.

Without question, “a life time spent in organized religion has the potential to impact a person’s ability to think.” (your question)

It does not “impact” all universally. Some conclude their formal education at 8th grade. Some conclude it at 12th grade. Still others never conclude both formal and self-directed thinking. Also, without question, some are quite able to compartmentalize “ability to think” and do it at only professional levels such as engineering or medicine or still some other area of thought and absorption of information (education).

Your academic use of the term “potential” is quite important in your question. There is “potential” realized, and there is “potential” unrealized. Those who become philosophical thinkers recognize differences and context thinking which others miss entirely. That may be connected to their heredity, but is clearly connected to their environment, their exposure to ideas which they consider with great care or pass over for a variety of reasons. (A mother with five children who require her attention is in a different venue than a professional woman who pursues here academic interests with one or no children.)

Some “organized religion” is more organized than other organized religion. In addition, exposure to religion is relative to time, place, and power/influence of any religion itself.

In another post, I clarified that the “dangers of religion” are relative to a multiplicity of factors. You will recall the Andrea Yates’ tragic story of drowning her five children because God told her to do it. Medical science characterized her as having succumbed to a nervous breakdown, which culminated in two suicide attempts and two psychiatric hospitalizations.

While raised Roman Catholic, “she recanted her former beliefs in 1992 when she submitted to Russell's mentor, travelling preacher Michael Peter Woroniecki, whom he had met at Auburn University in the fall of 1984.” (same source)

Most of us would regard her religious views as mental illness (without detail here). She acted on what she believed. She was found not guilty by reason of insanity.

Unlike you, Jersey Girl, and countless others who may have religious beliefs, for Andrea Yates, religion not only endangered her, it endangered her children as well. And while all of us could see this case as unique and not typical of those in general who hold with religious views, for Yates, her religious perspectives were dangerous.

To your question, her “potential” to think was destroyed by a combination of factors of which religion was one.

We could make a similar case for people like Jim Jones, Oral Roberts, Jerry Falwell, Pope Pius XII, and many others who were victims of religious doctrine be it that all of them are/were far different than that of Andrea Yates.

“A Poison that Destroys our Internal, Natural Morality” by Austin Cline, includes this for consideration:

“It's common for religious believers to insist that religion generally, or their religion in particular, is necessary for moral behavior. They also insist that their god is responsible for the existence of morality, such that morality and moral behavior aren't possible absence worship of their god. It's possible, though, that religious and theistic belief may be dangerous for moral behavior.”

We must acknowledge that this view is not without controversy. But, in addressing your question (Jersey Girl), your own broadened understanding has transcended the confines of what you have described as our early exposure to religious indoctrination. And to your great credit, you have rejected the idea that others can dictate your beliefs by “…religious training/instruction/indoctrination…” Your intellect has prevailed over indoctrination.

You referred to “Bible study classes” and a “chapter by chapter study of one book.” As you clearly appear to recognize, the “study” as it might be applied in secular school or university “study” is dissimilar in religion than it is in information-based education which is free from religious doctrine/dogma. “Bible study classes” are generally about indoctrination in a particular religious group. Such abuse and disconnect of the meaning for study is generally unrecognized by those who institute “Bible study classes” in any given religious group. The organization is often looking for teachers to conduct classes on “Bible study.”

They are not looking for some objective study of the Bible or for objective perspective on religious doctrines/dogmas.

Jersey Girl observed:
“When one is taught to believe without thinking, there is the possibility of that long term practice of intellectual disconnect bleeding over into other areas of one's life.”

Your observation is most astute and well phrased. I like your use of “there is the possibility.” It’s not a certainty, and it’s relative to the other aspects of their lives – their education, their exposure to different perspectives, their exposure to different cultures, and their exposure to all which might contribute to their edification and detailed insights.

{I know numerous religious agnostics. While that may seem a contradictory phrase, there are many who participate in religious groups (for social value, for friendship, for the joy of music, etc.).} Yet, they are quick to take with the proverbial grain of salt the official pronouncements of their religious group. They are ambivalent and agnostic about many of the doctrines of their particular religious group. They remain in the organization because their parents are there, or because their friends are there, or because other relatives are there.

It’s easier to keep quiet about their intellectual doubt and enjoy people, good food, wonderful music (from multi-million dollar pipe organs), trained musicians in voice, and other instruments, etc. If they do that, quietly keeping their own skepticism to themselves, they participate in the arts including the joy of the architecture of their own churches and cathedrals.

They feel no need to express publicly their skepticism. But, they do think. I could provide numerous personal (anecdotal) illustrations of just such people. When in the right company and when they feel safe from criticism, they will discuss both philosophy and more narrowly, religion, in ways that would both shock and offend the “bumper sticker” mentality of many in their religious group.

You mention, “a life time spent in organized religion.” Those who have the benefit of a liberal arts education, who attend state universities have a greater chance to escape that “lifetime in organized religion.” However, if they took a job just out of high school or worse, if they quit school at the 8th grade, there chance for exposure to ideas and breadth of knowledge which would enable them “to think” is greatly diminished. They don’t think. And their work, the kind they can do with little education, that work does not challenge their minds to think in any compendious, expansive, discursive, global way.

Instead, they work to pay bills, have kids, pay off debts (car, house), and they do not have stimulus “to think” as we may think of that in the discussion of weighty, philosophical ideas.

Clearly, as you suggest or observe, the time in one’s life or lifetime that he/she does not think academically is relevant to the capacity to think.

And yet, though this may sound a contradiction, there are people with little formal education who have developed the capacity to roll over in their minds large questions of philosophy. The probability, if you will, is diminished by lack of exposure to ideas in the academic world of university study, particularly in liberal arts, where creative inquiry is encouraged and nurtured.

You (Jersey Girl) had recounted our discussion: “Not long ago on this board, I asked you (JAK) if you thought a believer could also be a skeptic. You answered in the affirmative.”

I do think that. The degree to which one may become skeptical is relative to many of the things I have referenced in this post.

In groups where believing is emphasized over thinking, the “skeptic” in individuals is marginalized. They may do a fine job of thinking in their work as an electrical engineer (or some other area disconnected from truth by assertion).

The framework of religion is mercurial, subject to interpretation, and lacks the tools inherent in objective thinking. In many religious groups, religion is filled with feel-good emotion. While that can be useful and mentally healthy, it does not make for intellectual clarity. Religious groups are committed and generally dedicated to the perpetuation of their own propositions and the extension of their influence.

“…coming to a better understanding of scripture” is a nice thought. However, as we know (intellectually) there have been many different understandings and that there have been many translations and as we know that verbally told stories over decades or centuries are a fact, we also know that what scripture means is a matter of selective interpretation. That selective interpretation places emphasis on some “scripture” while deemphasizing other scripture.

We also know that those who claim to understand disagree with others who hold different views who also claim to understand. As we think and study various claims regarding “understanding,” we tend to become less aggressive in insistence that certain claims are superior to other claims.

But without question, “simply passively receiving it and spouting it” is a mindless exercise. Worse, it makes for animosity, distrust, and even hatred for or toward those who believe in or rely on different scriptures.

Information and education is in understanding the development and the evolution of those scriptures over centuries and encircling many cultures and civilizations through which they have come.

Thank you for your thoughts and insights in the post at the beginning of this thread of discussion. It is indeed “thinking.”

JAK

[_bcspace]

When one is taught to believe without thinking, there is the possibility of that long term practice of intellectual disconnect bleeding over into other areas of one's life.

What do you think? Do you think that a life time spent in organized religion has the potential to impact a person's ability to think?

Assuming I am a TBM, how should I reconcile this verse.....

Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
Proverbs 22: 6

..... with your concept of 'thinking' or is there any need at all for such a reconciliaition in the TBM case?

[_JAK]

When one is taught to believe without thinking, there is the possibility of that long term practice of intellectual disconnect bleeding over into other areas of one's life.

What do you think? Do you think that a life time spent in organized religion has the potential to impact a person's ability to think?

Assuming I am a TBM, how should I reconcile this verse.....

Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
Proverbs 22: 6

..... with your concept of 'thinking' or is there any need at all for such a reconciliaition in the TBM case?

bcspace,

Your question is a good one. First, allow me to restate a position which has gone unchallenged.

“Where reason and evidence are turned aside in favor of dogma and claim absent evidence, danger prevails.”

Religious doctrine/dogma is essentially that which favors doctrine/dogma over reason.

Nevertheless, in religion we find ideas which have merit.

The issue in your question begs the question How should a child go?

If one trains up a child to think to question, to challenge, YET at the same time to recognize information/evidence/reason, THAT may be a modern idea/position one might take in how a child might be “trained.”

The importance of rational, academic, information base would appear to be a proper training for a child today. “Today” as we recognize the importance of those things which I mentioned here.

At the time of the original notion of your biblical quote, it was intended to apply to religious doctrine/dogma. It begs the question of “should.” How should a child be trained? What is the “way” he/she should go?

If one concludes today that faith/religion/dogma transcends reason, then one wants to protect a “child” from reason. One wants to Trump reason with religion.

However, if one concludes that reason, information, knowledge is fundamental to the way a “child” should go, then religion and religious dogma becomes both irrelevant and dangerous.

Religion relies on the position of truth by assertion. That is far different from modern science in medicine, space exploration, etc. The sciences rely on information, evidence, skeptical review. They rely on consensus, not doctrine.

Hence, religious doctrine is irrelevant with regard to “the way he should go.”

If one concludes that ignorance and absence of information is what should guide a child, then by all means available, one should protect his children from information, evidence, and reason.

Your question is quite good, bcspace!

There is no “need” for any reconciliation as your question implies. The “need” is to access the most, best, most current information which one can access.

Hence, religious views or doctrines are irrelevant. That does not apply to Mormons alone. It applies to any religious doctrine which relies on truth by assertion.

Your question is quite interesting! Thanks for raising it.

JAK

[_bcspace]

Your question is quite interesting! Thanks for raising it.

You're welcome! Thanks for your analysis with which I agree.

Would be interesting to see what the other side has to say though.....