Fear of western medicine claims another victim

[iNow]

What do you mean "attract"? Most people are either raised religious or not. There's not much choice involved.

Fair enough. How about "retain" then? I'm referring to the population who does not walk away from these faith-based systems, and more specifically, to those who change their entire life and pattern of behaviors and thoughts as a direct result of them. So many... just like these parents... have a very specific idea in their head of what god wants. They often fail to meet the reasonable person standard because they are so often caught in a god-fog, and I don't think it's appropriate to discount the role religion plays in this nor to suggest that these people were just idiots to begin with and wash our hands of it... case closed... nothing to see here...let's move along folks. If idiocy was, in fact, a pre-existing condition, then that idiocy was given a place to incubate in religion, and given a safe-haven to grow and take on more prominence in the psyche of the believer... Protected and given safety within the community.

 

While there are clearly outliers in religious populations, I'm suggesting that the mean population of these folks exhibit behaviors where they must lack critical thinking skills... or at least suspend those skills for a significant part of their world view. In fact, the concept of faith by definition requires a lack of critical thinking... and this lack of critical thinking is reinforced as a very positive thing... rewarded socially and encouraged. In my estimation, that's a rather dangerous system of reward to setup and elevate.

 

 

As for making people stupid... what do you mean? Is this "evolution is wrong, God speaks to me at night" sort of stuff or "Where's the 'any key'?" stupid? Or, in other words, is it a total lack of critical thinking ability or merely the bypass of that ability for certain core beliefs installed by religion?

Critical thinking gets extinguished through these types of beliefs (I'm talking about behavioral conditioning here... the reinforcement is against questioning claims and solving problems analytically). It's also about accepting dogma which does not align with reality, and rejecting the parts of reality which contradict said dogma. I consider it stupid to reject reality, but YMMV.

 

---

line[/hr]

 

 

Well for one thing, there is no way to know if someone is in the process of responding to a post.

 

Also, you can give a reason for editing, or edit to post to say "deleted". A response of "..." is hardly ever a deleted post, so why would you expect people to guess that it is?

I'll take that under consideration. Are there any other parts of my style or overall posting gestalt and technique on which you'd like to offer your wisdom and critique? Please, that'd be great. Apparently when I put an ellipsis it causes people to go all apeshit and act all batty, and I'd rather not let that happen again, so your "posting for dummies" snippet would be welcomed.

 

You know the frakkin crazy part in all of this? I had thought better of what I originally posted... realized it was inappropriate... so came back to edit it out. I self-censored, and look at all of the bullshit I'm putting up with as a result of doing so. No good deed goes unpunished, I suppose.

 

 

But is there any way to tell whether it was religion that lead to the neglect, or that religion was just a convenient excuse for the neglect?

The evidence certainly skews in a particular direction, especially since she's refusing to even help her lawyer with the case since "god will take care of" her. I don't think she's smart enough to be using a "convenient excuse" on this one. I think she's had her mind poisoned by the cancer which is religious practice. I suppose we can't tell for sure, though, but it would be rather disingenuous of people to suggest that religion played no role here. It absolutely did, and the only question under consideration is the extent of the role played.

 

 

---

line[/hr]

 

 

Secondly, she had gotten away with it right up until the time she was charged. I think this was iNow's main point.

Circle gets the square. Well done, my good man. It was more about the fact that she looked "normal" because her beliefs carried the protection of being based in religion and god.

 

 

All I see that is relevant is that (1) she is a complete loon who (2) used religion to justify her loony and harmful actions to herself. I don't see any evidence any of her abusive behavior was tolerated by anyone at anytime for any reason.

I think that's probably fair, but I suggest a bit short-sighted. Yes, had people known she was not feeding her kids, our evolved sense of community and morality would have compelled someone to take action. The point, however, is that religion is always this taboo subject and people don't feel comfortable questioning the decisions of people who claim to be acting on faith or who claim to be following the will of god.

 

Let me give an example. Let's say people did see the malnourished kids, and spoke with her about it. Imagine what the response would have been if she'd responded, "Oh, we've been fasting. It's part of our communion ritual." It's like a get out of jail free card... even if it had nothing to do with her religion... even if she was lying, and those kids were starving due to nothing related to her religion... The fact that she raised the concept of faith and religious practice when questioned would have allowed her to skew the response away from one of abhorrence and toward one of acceptance. Those kids could have been dangerously ill, but people would have been reluctant to do anything about it the moment they heard it had something to do with her religion.

 

I'm suggesting a milder form of the same thing here. People did not see the red flags sooner because these beliefs are so accepted in society. It's dangerous because her style of thinking is considered perfectly normal... normal, at least, in the context of religious faith.

 

 

I will say though, she probably exhibited signs of being a complete nutter, that were indistinguishable from signs of being "a very religious person" that if caught early, would have helped her children avoid all that hardship. I have to agree that mental illness is much harder to identify when the sufferer obsesses on religion, because is not subject to reason. When someone is scared of aliens living in the trees it's easy to red flag. When they are scared of an immortal entity living under the dirt it's not paranoia, it's religion.

Precisely.

 

 

---

line[/hr]

 

I think the staff have been pretty consistent in saying that this is precisely what we don't want people to do. Personal attacks are not acceptable.

Yes, I agree, but I'm not seeing how you can classify any of my posts above as a personal attack. I was actually responding to one, not making one. If you feel otherwise, then please have the courtesy to quote which post or comment I made which has stirred this up (even if you only send it in a PM). AFAICT, people took umbrage with my tone, with the fact that I am unashamedly discussing sacred cows, and apparently others are choosing to wholly ignore what provoked my response such that all blame can be summarily lain at my feet.

Edited December 6, 2009 by iNow

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Fair enough. How about "retain" then? I'm referring to the population who does not walk away from these faith-based systems, and more specifically, to those who change their entire life and pattern of behaviors and thoughts as a direct result of them. So many... just like these parents... have a very specific idea in their head of what god wants. They often fail to meet the reasonable person standard because they are so often caught in a god-fog, and I don't think it's appropriate to discount the role religion plays in this nor to suggest that these people were just idiots to begin with and wash our hands of it... case closed... nothing to see here...let's move along folks. If idiocy was, in fact, a pre-existing condition, then that idiocy was given a place to incubate in religion, and given a safe-haven to grow and take on more prominence in the psyche of the believer... Protected and given safety within the community.

It would be interesting to study the psychology of this. Religion implanted in you in childhood is likely very, very deep-rooted, and it takes extraordinary circumstances to cause you to just give it up.

 

As for "safe havens", well, possibly. But if you're crazy, you're going to fabricate any sort of crazy belief system. Exhibit A: that cult that believed the mothership was going to come to earth and take them away. The founder of that was likely just schizophrenic, in my opinion, and she fabricated what basically constitutes a "religion" to substantiate it, rather than jumping in to an existing religion.

 

So instead of attacking religion and implicitly attacking believers who haven't done anything wrong, I think the better approach is to throw the "I'm entitled to my opinions! I can believe whatever I want and you can't stop me" argument out the window and just ignore the person's personal beliefs when they're doing something horrible like neglecting their child's welfare.

 

Fair enough?

 

 

Critical thinking gets extinguished through these types of beliefs (I'm talking about behavioral conditioning here... the reinforcement is against questioning claims and solving problems analytically). It's also about accepting dogma which does not align with reality, and rejecting the parts of reality which contradict said dogma. I consider it stupid to reject reality, but YMMV.

But does this extinguished critical thinking extend to matters beyond religion? Do these people have a hard time doing mathematics or fixing bugs in software or something? Or are you basing your accusations of "stupid" off the fact that they deny evolution and have a host of religious (faith-based) beliefs?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Yes, I agree, but I'm not seeing how you can classify any of my posts above as a personal attack. I was actually responding to one, not making one. If you feel otherwise, then please have the courtesy to quote which post or comment I made which has stirred this up (even if you only send it in a PM). AFAICT, people took umbrage with my tone, with the fact that I am unashamedly discussing sacred cows, and apparently others are choosing to wholly ignore what provoked my response such that all blame can be summarily lain at my feet.

 

You admitted it was a "forceful response" in the post swansont quoted. It has nothing to do with sacred cows, as the post in question had nothing to do with sacred cows. And then you attacked me for disagreeing with your "forceful attack."

 

This behavior looks more like "Hey! Stop lookin' at me funny!" <punch> rather than "Hey! You just hit me!" <punch>.

 

Now, remember, if you really want to argue about this, don't. Your behavior is disruptive regardless of how well you can justify it.

[swansont]

Yes, I agree, but I'm not seeing how you can classify any of my posts above as a personal attack. I was actually responding to one, not making one. If you feel otherwise, then please have the courtesy to quote which post or comment I made which has stirred this up (even if you only send it in a PM). AFAICT, people took umbrage with my tone, with the fact that I am unashamedly discussing sacred cows, and apparently others are choosing to wholly ignore what provoked my response such that all blame can be summarily lain at my feet.

 

Let me be as plain as I can:

 

If someone makes what a poster perceives as a personal attack, THE POSTER SHOULD NOT RESPOND TO IT.

 

If it is above your threshold for ignoring, report the post.

 

[iNow]

Fair enough?

I don't disagree that the central issue is with the actions which caused the detriment to the child(ren). All I'm saying is that it's inappropriate to try sweeping the role religion played (or, to use Padren's example, the role alcoholism played) under the rug. It was a prominent factor, and while the action itself is the target of contempt and disapproval, the surrounding context of that action is wholly relevant and appropriate for discussion.

 

 

 

But does this extinguished critical thinking extend to matters beyond religion?

Based on the structure of the human brain, it almost has to. So, yes. It's not an across the board phenomenon, or anything, but it is a logical inconsistency in peoples approach to the world, and their neural architecture will be impacted accordingly... even if it is as simple as something like cognitive dissonance.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Based on the structure of the human brain, it almost has to. So, yes. It's not an across the board phenomenon, or anything, but it is a logical inconsistency in peoples approach to the world, and their neural architecture will be impacted accordingly... even if it is as simple as something like cognitive dissonance.

 

Neither of us is a neuroscientist, so I'll leave the conclusions about neural architecture alone. But you said you worked with people who were made stupid by their religion. What of them specifically? Does their extinguished critical thinking extend to things beyond their religion?

[iNow]

Neither of us is a neuroscientist, so I'll leave the conclusions about neural architecture alone.

My background and training are in that field, just for your reference. However, I'm not a practicing scientist now, so will not belabor the point.

 

 

But you said you worked with people who were made stupid by their religion. What of them specifically?

In particular, it's the dismissal of evolution and the dismissal of anthropogenic climate change, but beyond that, it's their flawed logic and inability to support an argument with something other than mockery and ridicule.

 

In short, I can make the most bullet-proof pristine argument in the world, supporting every single point with multiple sources and articulating it so clearly that a child could grasp it... and yet, they have had their "faith is more important than evidence" position reinforced so consistently that they simply dismiss all of that data as "propaganda" and "bias" and then start going off on tangents about how science is often wrong and other stupid nonsense.

 

Their regular participation with religion... the regular reinforcement they receive that "faith is good" and that accepting things without (and often despite) evidence is a strength, not a weakness... it leads them to feel the same way about other things in life. It's far too often what underlies peoples denial of science and rejection of the need for evidence. It's strikingly similar to what we see here online... someone comes in to bash evolution, and it's a direct result of their religious training and indoctrination. I trust that you accept that premise here as it happens at SFN, so I'd be surprised if you could not extend that as something which happens offline as well.

 

It's really bothered me about my friends at work, and perhaps I'm taking some of that out on respondents here. That's not my intention, but certainly possible, and I apologize if that's the case. It's just so disappointing, and stories like this one where peoples kids are going through such torment because of religious belief just pushes me over the top.

 

 

Does their extinguished critical thinking extend to things beyond their religion?

Yes, it does. I've been on many projects with these folks where religion is obviously not even a factor, but their diminished critical thinking skills are readily on display there, as well.

 

Please note: I was using the term "extinguished" as it's used in conditioning literature, and was not intending to suggest their ability to think critically was being completely erased... Just significantly impacted toward the negative.

[Mr Skeptic]

But does this extinguished critical thinking extend to matters beyond religion? Do these people have a hard time doing mathematics or fixing bugs in software or something? Or are you basing your accusations of "stupid" off the fact that they deny evolution and have a host of religious (faith-based) beliefs?

 

It most certainly does not, at least not in all cases. Exhibit A: me. I was brought up religious, but with an interest in science. My religious beliefs had no noticeable effect on my reasoning abilities nor intelligence. I got good grades in school (I considered 95% to be a low grade). The effect it did have, was that I refused to be spoon fed evolution. Normally when I hear a theory that I do not understand I provisionally accept the scientific consensus on it, until such time if ever as I understand it well enough to see for myself why it is true. This should not be a problem for a scientific theory, as they are supposed to be proven to an absurd degree of certainty. Anyways, I remained skeptical of evolution until iNow showed me an example of a clear, objective fact that was predicted by evolution and in conflict with creationism (retroviruses embedded in our DNA, and in a way that suggests common ancestry). This is generally what it takes for a new theory to overthrow a previously accepted theory.

 

Most religious people will not study evolution enough to understand the irrefutable evidence in favor of it, so they hold no contradictory beliefs. Most atheists will not either, but are more likely to accept it anyways.