Think Critically or Die?

[Palehorse]

Humanity it would seem, is an insidious lot; capable of strong emotional response, dedication, and drive. Something the animals, fowl, and fish would likely admire us for but for our nasty tendency to ignore their world, except for when it comes to placing one or more of them onto the menu. But are these traits worthy of the admiration of other creatures? Indeed, are they necessarily worthy traits at all?

When you factor in the negative physical impact of strong emotional response, it should drive a review of the worthiness of such strong emotion and its impact upon our lives. For example:

Lets take the subject of religion, (OH BOY!  ) Just the word evokes emotional responses that cover the spectrum of primordial responses, fight or flight, to raising your blood pressure across the board once the topic registers in your mind.  A subject that for centuries upon centuries has driven humankind to go so far as to take up arms against one another in the name of one religion or another.

And over what really? Some words in a book or three? Power over a group of people, or the ability to impress another with your ability to memorize the words?

Each of us has been brought up with one (or more) versions of religion taking up a large portion of the impressionable years of our lives. From the fire and brimstone perspectives of some protestant sects, to the "redo" approach of Catholicism, to the "no messiah yet" Jews and "Jihad" Muslim's, each of them instill into its faithful a strong emotional commitment toward the particular set of beliefs they endorse. In exchange for what?

Politics. The first two letters of this subject aptly characterize where any broaching of the topic is going to lead: "P.O.", or pissed off. Yes, each and every attempt to discuss this subject and its vat of differing perspectives and approaches is sure to lead to vessel busting and head thumping responses. In many cases one would think the combatants, (and I call them this for even if they are friends the emotions this subject elicit always lead toward conflict), were bitter enemies undertaking the cause of a centuries old wrong done toward one or the other.

You have to ask, is there any one political figure worthy of such dedication from any one of their constituency as to drive physical harm? I mean, they all lie, they all steal, they all are easily influenced by the almighty dollar; and in the end there isn't a single one of them that is going to do anything other than that which will benefit their personal needs or desires the most. Game over, that's it!

Yet every day out here in cyberspace, within the media, and in the magazines of the world, we read, watch, or participate in conversations in which we clearly see folks so emotionally tied to the subject at hand as to be quite literally risking their very lives just by broaching the subject. Blood vessel popping pressure rises through their veins, testing the soundness of each centimeter of the miles of circulatory system we each possess; along with the ability of the pump (heart) to sustain such unhealthy levels for a prolonged period.

Their eyes become bloodshot from the burgeoning pressure levels, and "heaven forbid" that you actually provide some kind of empirical proof to demonstrate the fact they are incorrect! Doing so will shake their world to its very core and they'd rather risk death than to admit they are wrong and have the world as they have believed it to be vanquished for all time.

Blinded by their unquestioning dedication these folks refuse to see that which is placed before them, no matter the source or its reliability; and in today's litigious society how far can we be from having a case brought wherein someone sues another party over the fact that their disagreement brought about the death of a party via stroke or heart-attack, despite the fact no physical contact took place?

(I could go on and on about both of these subjects, but that has already been done herein countless times; so why cover old ground?)

Perhaps we should enact legislation that would preclude each and every one of us from broaching the subjects of politics, religion, and the military, because clearly these topics drive folks addicted to them to their death. Inch by inch, every time the subject they are addicted to is broached their circulatory system is weakened, until one day it fails. They would have been far better off to devote such levels of dedication toward an exercise regimen or their family, or perhaps a business of some type.

A far better solution would be for each and every one of us to educate ourselves on the attributes, methods, and theories of critical thought and problem solving. Train ourselves to disengage and approach a subject from another angle, minus the emotional flotsam that kills us slowly. Lower that blood pressure and reduce the strain on your heart, by achieving these abilities. Think critically or die!

[Y]

Cognitive Dissonance

Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon which refers to the discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what you already know or believe, and new information or interpretation. It therefore occurs when there is a need to accommodate new ideas, and it may be necessary for it to develop so that we become "open" to them. Neighbour (1992) makes the generation of appropriate dissonance into a major feature of tutorial (and other) teaching: he shows how to drive this kind of intellectual wedge between learners' current beliefs and "reality".

Beyond this benign if uncomfortable aspect, however, dissonance can go "over the top", leading to two interesting side-effects for learning:

    * if someone is called upon to learn something which contradicts what they already think they know — particularly if they are committed to that prior knowledge — they are likely to resist the new learning. Even Carl Rogers recognised this. Accommodation is more difficult than Assimilation, in Piaget's terms.
             
    * and—counter-intuitively, perhaps—if learning something has been difficult, uncomfortable, or even humiliating enough, people are less likely to concede that the content of what has been learned is useless, pointless or valueless. To do so would be to admit that one has been "had", or "conned".

[Y]

That is why people of certain mindsets violently resist accepting new positions even when the position they hold has been proved in error or blatantly false.

When people invest their lives in a proposition, they are not going to give it up without a fight - if at all - which will color their thinking as well as their information gathering process.  They will 'see' and 'hear' what falls into their line of thought and be 'blind' and 'deaf' to any dissonant information.

[Y]

Now the partisan (and I don't use that in a strictly political context) rebuttal is that "Your side does it too!"

For that argument, I, once again, bring up the defense of valid and invalid 'opinions' - not all 'opinions' on any given position are valid, regardless of the depth or fervor in which they are held.

Where it behooves us - as searchers for truth - to be intellectually honest and discard positions, information, or ideas that are proved invalid.

Otherwise, truth isn't what you're looking for.  ; )

[The Troll]

Question:  What would happen if we got rid of all of the bibles and all of the religions, all of the churches and religious symbols.  And all of us the people of the world,  just practiced one thing.  DO UNTO OTHERS, AS YOU WOULD HAVE DONE TO YOU.  What in hell would you have to fight about.  Not religion.

The Troll           

[pariann]

But because we ARE thinking creatures, whether it be emotionally driven or logic driven, we WILL find something to disagree about it.  It's inevitable.

[The Troll]

Pariann, Thinking people?  There is a whole lot of people who don't and won't think.  Just like all of the wars.  We got people who want other people's stuff and will kill to get it.  You are right, but if all of the religious symbals were gone, they couldn't be fighting over their gods.

The Troll

[Henry Hawk]

Question:  What would happen if we got rid of all of the bibles and all of the religions, all of the churches and religious symbols.  And all of us the people of the world,  just practiced one thing.  DO UNTO OTHERS, AS YOU WOULD HAVE DONE TO YOU.  What in hell would you have to fight about.  Not religion.

The Troll           

btw, THAT is pretty much what Jesus teaches.....but, it is the atheist whacko's who get the undies all stuck up their crawl because they don't want to beleive that He just MIGHT be the Son of God like He claimed....and THAT just don't add up on paper.

[Sandy Eggo]

Speak of the devil

I would rather be in control of my destiny utilizing rational thought then being led around by an imagionary guy in the sky (or anywhere else). If everyone religious would actually engage their brains and think logically about their beliefs and the teachings...religion would die out. 

As for me, I don't need any of it to be a good person.

[The Troll]

Foghorn's buddy,  Henry you don't have a thing to worry about the atheist.  We don't give a damn about  what you Taliban Christan's do to  yourself and you own people.

  We get our panties bunched up is when you far right religious wingnuts try to shove your religion down our throats.  Let's make a deal, you leave us alone and keep you keep your damn narrow noses out our business and the other religions alone and you can go to your own hell by yourselves.

   If you want to believe that there is a invisible guy in the sky.  Watching every thing you do 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.  Writting down every sin what you have sinned and even what you have even thought about sinfully.  When when you die, he's going to throw you into the fiery pit of hell.  Where his most powerful angel, the devil, burns and burns you, and burns you.  forever and ever and ever, and ever.   Because he loves you, its alright with me if you go to your hell.

  You know the there is  6.3 billion people in the world and there is 2.5 billion Christians in the world.  That means that you only have around 33% of the people in this world.  Your out numbered quite a bit.  I don't think you want to start a religious war.  I would be one of the people fighting you I am a damn good shot.  Got some army medals to prove that.  I won't kiss you ring and you can kiss my ***a.  The Troll   

 

[Henry Hawk]

c'mon Troll, tell me how you REALLY feel..............

I'm pretty sure that I (as a Christian) am planning on a secret,covert,Christian coup...and there is NO ring kissing as far as I know...

   seriously...THIS is the kind of kooks that have NO idea what most Christians want in this life...Troll, you are ONE kooky dude!!  ..but I luv ya!!..we need to settle this over a cup o coffee someday...  

[Henry Hawk]

As for me, I don't need any of it to be a good person.

yes you do!!..in article 16, section 21, paragraph 9, CLEARLY says....THOU MUST BE RELIGIOUS TO BE A GOOD PERSON... did you NOT get the memo?..

[Sandy Eggo]

Apparently not, but I'm behind on my reading of "Religious nonsense weekly"

[Henry Hawk]

 

I'm in a good mood today....don't know why exactly, but maybe it had something to do with calling Nancy Pelosi....I don't know, but I think I'm going to buy a lottery ticket tonight....

[followsthewolf]

What did you call her??



Geez. Sometimes I just kill myself.