In my opinion, something not as widely discussed, or at least something I have not seen discussed often, is that with the indirect rise of religion comes a rise of anti-intellectualism. This post will focus on the West because that is where I have seen this pattern have the greatest impact. As someone in that school system, and more specifically in the Bible Belt, I have seen the effects firsthand among peers.
As self-aware creatures, we naturally strive for meaning and morality. When religion offers that sense of meaning, we are inclined to accept it, even when it contradicts reason. Studies have shown that theists often experience reduced activity in the prefrontal cortex during both religious experiences and when presented with counterarguments. This reduced brain activity helps them combat the cognitive dissonance that arises when viable evidence against their God is presented.
My main point is that religion is one of the many contributors to the rise of anti-intellectualism among the upcoming generation. Children are being spoon-fed cherry-picked information about religion, and the strong push for Christianity and traditional values is making young girls, in particular, satisfied with mediocrity. Research has already shown that literacy rates among children are declining. Introducing the Bible into classrooms and pushing it as the correct moral doctrine only gives students an excuse to dismiss subjects like math and science as irrelevant.
When presented with authority, children tend to rely on it for validation, and for many, the highest authority becomes their god. In the South, that god often reinforces hateful and exclusionary beliefs such as xenophobia, homophobia, racism, and even slavery. These children grow up using their doctrine as justification for their bitterness, and they refuse to challenge it because it gives them permission to hate without guilt.
I’m extremely curious how others have seen this, as I know with the simultaneous rise of social media people parade these “traditional” lives around and you can see teachers coming out with stories about unruly students that are mentally years behind where they need to be.
What sources are referring to that support a rise in religion?
You mention the west, but this post sounds very U.S. centric.
Does it? Any source for this?
For a post about anti-intellectualism, I’m surprised at the distinct lack of any supporting evidence.
I accept that certain practices taking place in parts of America may be negatively impacting education, but applying this to all of the U.S. as a correlation toward declining education levels, letalone the west as a whole, to me seems like a hasty generalisation.
I think anti-intellectualism, irrationality, subjective emotion-driven viewpoints and the like come from both religion (especially, though not exclusively, fundamentalist / authoritarian forms) and from politics (especially, though not exclusively, conservative forms).
The OP mentioned social media being in the mix. I think that has had an influence of its own. Some have persuasively argued that it has widely rewired participant’s brains to be less rational and more, shall we say, Pavlovian. People devolve to saying any old thing if it results in social media capital (e.g., likes, number of followers) and/or in “winning” an “argument”. If you have an opponent, you don’t have to bother coming up with facts or arguments, just get a bunch of people to gang up on them so that they are ratioed out of existence.
All of these factors – religious, political, social media, other forms of belonging – are developing mutual reinforcement patterns.
IMO the way to combat all of these influences is to teach and promote critical thinking skills. Preferably starting at a very young age, in school. But we have devolved to the point in the US where this just isn’t ever going to happen. Johnny must not come home from school asking their parents uncomfortable questions about their religious or political beliefs or about their online behavior.
Religion requires you to voluntarily repress your critical thinking skills. How else could anyone cling to a dogma that flies in the face of evidence or proof.
Somewhere on the Internet is an interesting study on how religion relies on attachment to attract followers. I wish I could find it now…
A healthy attachment provides a safe haven and a safe place to explore the world. If you don’t get it from a parent or guardian, you’re a prime target for religious dogma. The premise is that by attaching to a dogma you no longer require the approval or acceptance by non-believers. Your confirmation bias adjust accordingly.
As Voltaire said, “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”
Truth and the pursuit of it is the first atrocity.
True enough, but not just religious dogma. For example as we have here in the US – you can belong to MAGA or some fusion of MAGA and Christian fundamentalism / nationalism. You can find belonging in political parties, civic organizations, clubs, neighborhoods, personal friendships – any number of things.
Also it is not true that if you had good, functional attachments as a child that you have zero need for them as an adult. If your childhood attachments were dysfunctional you’re more needy and vulnerable (and so less picky / more willing to suspend disbelief) but even absent that you are human – and as such, you’re (with some individual variance) social and a “herd animal”. You have those needs.
So tempting as it is, I can’t lay all our societal problems at the feet of religion.
It’s lamentably true that few things are better at providing belonging and refuge than houses of worship. It is relatively hard to find as much solidarity and stable group belonging anywhere else; maybe there was a time when lodges were a close second but they seem to be on the ropes, being more for the lowbrow patriarchy than for whole families.
I’ve been out of the church for over 30 years now and I can honestly say that for all the church’s flaws this is the one thing consistently lacking in other associations and if I did not have very modest social needs (I’m quite introverted and heady) and/or if I were poorer and/or more precarious financially, I would probably feel that very acutely. There’s a reason that relatively few atheists are gregarious “joiners”.
What I do agree with you on is that critical thinking skills are severely lacking in most of the populace and it’s a huge damned problem. I agree that a significant part of that is religiously mediated, directly or indirectly, mostly (but not exclusively) through authoritarian flavors of religion. Some of it is religion promoting uncritical acceptance of bare assertions; some of it is religion acting as catalyst or accelerant to other forces in society, such as the wealthy keeping the lower classes oppressed and exploited in various ways.
I’d stipulate that the religious are not a monolith; some belong to sects that give you more freedom to question and explore, and some believers are more into the “mystery” than in seeking someone or some organization to “just tell me what to believe”.
Also some people are really good at compartmentalizing, or are willing to accept more ambiguous / less literal / more figurative interpretations and applications of various doctrines. Certainly someone who thinks there was a literal garden of Eden some 6,000 years ago has a very different mindset than someone who sees the creation and fall as symbolic legends about loss of innocence or some such.
Still, it is hard for me, locked in the asylum with the inmates here in the US, to overlook that a fuckton of religious people DO want a set of black-and-white rules and simplistic explanations for things, and cannot abide the real world full of yucky people with weird and scary skin colors, customs, culinary tastes and backstories. This is a place where we never rightly reckoned with the cruelty and hypocrisy of slavery, where slavery never really went away so much as was replaced by other oppressive structures like the incarcerative state and Jim Crow laws, mostly cheered on by unctuous religious fools proclaiming this a “Christian” (white) nation with God-given dominion over things.
So forgive me if what @cynical1 says resonates quite well with the situation on the ground here for me.
I can understand why people would feel that way, especially with the situation in U.S., and I agree that critical thought is suffering across the world, and also that to some degree, some people who are religious are not engaging in critical thought, which is not helpful in any capacity.
I don’t agree that repression of critical thought is a requirement, or that belief necessarily flies in the face of evidence or proof (though I understand one can argue it flies in the face of depending on evidence or proof)
It certainly was a requirement and flew in the face of evidence or proof in the sect I grew up in. “Let God be true, and every man a liar”, as Romans 3:4 has it.
This needn’t be a practical problem if you’re not an inerrantist / literalist / young earth creationist. Those are not fringe positions in the US, unfortunately. Or at least it’s fair to say that those views are influential disproportionate to the number of people holding them.
Based on the definition of faith (in the religious sense of “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen”), yes.
A requirement for objective verification is not the same as critical thought.
One could argue that a dependency on objective verification in and of itself is not critical thought. A person dismissing something solely on the absence of objective evidence or verification has not engaged in critical thought to dismiss something outright (but that is not to say that one cannot dismiss something as lacking objective evidence while still having critical thought, just that the dismissal is an outcome not a necessary part.
It takes critical thought to recognise there are some things for which objective verification cannot apply. It also takes critical thought to recognise that for many things that have been “objectively verified” are actually just subjectively verified and accepted as objectively verified.
Consider for example the higgs boson. A person can accept that science has found this elusive particle, but in terms of the scientific method - a person cannot test/validate this claim for themselves, as CERN doesn’t exactly let just anyone in to play with their equipment and building a large hadron collider isn’t an option to most people. All we have is a group of scientists collectively agreeing something has occurred, providing data in support of that claim, and other scientists agreeing with their findings.
Those same scientists are then dependent on other knowledge being accepted without being tested, because if every scientist began from testing the very first principles of science for themselves, step-by-step right the way up toward the current state, there would be no time left for scientific innovation.
One could argue that innovation is a demonstration of the accepted principles being correct, but one could then argue that if something is wrong, getting consistent outcomes based on an initially incorrect premise doesn’t overturn the fact the initial premise is incorrect.
I’m not disputing science though, just pointing out that some things have to be accepted as objectively verified when in actuality, it is just a group of people agreeing on something, that if other groups of people have re-tested have not found any issues with it.
To put it another way, equating objective evidence/verification to critical thought is a category error. Objective evidence/verification is a product of a particular methodology (the scientific method) and fits within the framework of science, which in turn is dependent on quantification, control and reproducibility, while also operating within an empirical framework. Critical thought is a process that operates across frameworks. It would be like comparing apples to music.
Another point to note, critical thought need not result in a “correct” outcome. One can utilise critical thought and still end up with an incorrect result. Furthermore, critical thought may not result in an outcome at all, or an outcome that isn’t correct or incorrect.
Consider the question of whether Beethoven’s music is beautiful - one can use critical thought and produce a well-reasoned argument as to why it is beautiful, or why it isn’t. There is no correct answer, and there is no objective evidence or verification to support any position. One may also reach a conclusion without using critical thought.
If someone considers Beethoven’s symphonies to be beautiful, it would be wrong to state that holding such a view requires the repression of critical thought.
It’s an interesting article from a psychological perspective, but I don’t see any relevance to your initial argument. The paper makes no reference or link to critical thought and the arguments made and supported within the paper apply just as equally to non-belief / an atheistic position.
I understand you said in your initial argument that:
however, this would be a misrepresentation of the article. It makes no claim as to there being a reliance or attraction. It simply explains some of the psychological processes pertaining to attachment theory and how this may influence religious belief (and by extension non-belief / atheism).
You’d be wrong, since it’s a question not an argument.
Well that’s a subjective personal opinion of course, and again it was a question.
One could yes, but then that is rather the point of my question. One can easily ringfence a belief from objective scrutiny, yes.
Who has / is doing this? Now that sounds like a straw man to me. If a claim provides no data to examine, then I withhold belief, and keep and open mind. If I invest belief in one such claim, what then is my criteria for disbelief of all the others?
Indeed it does, also to understand that one could invest belief in almost anything, if one abandons any objective verification.
Now that’s a false equivalence, comparing the methods of science to a “leap of faith”.
No that isn’t true, we have a method that demands peer review of their work, there is the false equivalence, you are comparing a scientific consensus to a bare appeal to numbers or an appeal to authority, but they are very different, and it is objectively verifiable evidence that the removal of as much subjective bias that is that difference.
I don’t care whether it exists, I only care how reliable the evidence is, this is critical thinking, wanting a deity to exist out of countless deities, without any way to objectively verify any difference, that’s not critical thinking, that’s subjective bias.
Another nonsensical false equivalence, and a moments critical thought could demonstrate this:
The science that puts in planes in the air and enables them to fly is tested objectively every time they arrive safely at their destinations, when they don’t it is not because the science behind them is unsound, it is because we failed to follow it strictly enough. When subjective religious belief can design build and fly a plane as reliably as science then I will accept your comparison is not a false equivalence.
Which is the fundamental difference between science and religion, one can be objectively verified, the other not.
I disagree, if one examines the results critically and without subjective bias, then one method is exponentially better at helping us understand reality, The other offers no measurable results.
Of course not, but this is irrelevant, what is relevant is that critical thinking removes as much subjective bias as is possible, and thus produces more reliable results. Religions on the hand do not produce reliably consistent results, and humans have imagined countless deities and religions to go with them.
Another straw man, since no one is claiming that it is objectively true that Beethoven’s music is beautiful, that is an entirely subjective evaluation.
I agree, but this is a false equivalence, as claiming a deity exists and claiming you find music pleasing or beautiful, are not comparable claims, unless you’re saying that deities exist only in the subjective imagination of humans of course?
Posing a question doesn’t escape a question being fallacious.
The question is framed to ask whether theists subject their belief to critical doubt, and demand objective verification - it’s a false equivalence fallacy because a demand for objective verification is not required for critical thought/doubt.
Asking a question doesn’t bypass logic.
It’s like someone saying, “Do people taste a banana before deciding pomegranite is more beautiful in appearance?” - taste has no bearing on aesthetics, so the question is illogical.
No, it’s an epistemological distinction. Critical thought is a method of evaluating reasoning, internal coherence and consistency. Objective verification pertains to external validation and empirical evidence. These are two different domains - they are not interchangeable even if they can overlap. The suggestion opposing this distinction would be fallacious.
But one can still employ critical thought in relation to a belief without requiring objective scrutiny, and one can involve objective scrutiny without thinking critically - in that context, your point doesn’t address the initial issue raised.
I didn’t say anyone has or is doing this, I was just explaining why conflating critical thought with objective evidence/verification wasn’t logical.
They could, but they could also employ critical thought in terms of any potential belief.
No, that’s false equivalence for comparing what I said with being a comparison between scientific method and a leap of faith.
What I was saying was that just because someone has (allegedly) used the scientific method, doesn’t mean that others are able to objectively verify that they have. I gave a clear example where a typical person wouldn’t have the means to validate claims of the higgs boson being found, because we would lack the resources to reproduce the findings, given that it requires an LHC.
The vast majority of people in the world are not scientists, but they accept scientific knowledge as objectively verified even though they don’t have the means to verify it themselves. People simply trust the system in place (peer review, etc.)
“that demands peer review” - which is what “a group of scientists collectively agreeing” is. Peer(s) being other scientists. So if the peer review agrees, then scientists have collectively agreed (collectively meaning multiple scientists).
Peer review also isn’t objective verification. The peers haven’t - for example - gone to CERN and reproduced the findings for themselves. They have read through the paper that has been submitted that states the data and the findings, and agrees with the interpretation.
I don’t disagree that subjective bias has been mitigated as much as possible, but we’re not talking about bias, we’re talking about objective verification.
If a person reads a paper (or book, or article, etc. about/based on a paper/findings) and simply accepts what has been written - while there is nothing wrong with doing that, in and of itself, that action has not required critical thought.
Consider when news media reported that the Higgs Boson had been found by scientists at CERN. The vast majority of people hearing of this simply accepted this on face value. They accept the evidence as reliable simply because scientists have said it is, and that scientists appear to be in agreement on it. Nothing wrong with that, but critical thought is absent. That vast majority also have no way to objectively verify the claim either.
No matter how much science has gone into it, for the vast majority, it is essentially a belief. Something written or spoken informing them of something claimed to be fact, for which they have no means to objectively evidence themselves if challenged to do so. Even for those who would have the means to quote from articles etc. are still only quoting what someone else has stated. At most a person can confirm if the data provided supports the findings stated, but they can’t validate the data itself.
With things like Higgs Boson, you also have a chain of dependencies - the very data that supports it depends on other findings that are also dependent on an LHC. The data is not going to be universal - one would need familiarity with how an LHC operates and how data should be interpreted from an LHC and/or even smaller equivalent systems and processes.
It all boils down to people accepting that multiple people who they trust “know better” have accepted the findings.
We can see the limitations with this system playing out in the real world. Consider climate change as a exemplary example of this. It doesn’t matter that there has been years of scientific research into this field, and there has been a global acceptance of the science behind climate change - if people challenge the validity of the data, there is no fall back on objective verification. The vast majority can’t do that, they’re dependent on “faith” in the science and in the scientific process. It doesn’t matter that science hasn’t failed them in other areas - when they face something negative, something that doesn’t offer tangible benefits but instead means possible hardship, increased taxes, less luxuries, etc., they question that “faith”.
(For clarity, my use of the word faith is strictly defined as trust in a perceived authority, for which a layperson cannot objectively verify or validate due to lack of independent knowledge and/or the required tools)
Again, I’m not criticising science, I’m just acknowledging its limitations, and the limitations of the vast majority who are not scientists.
That’s cherry picking. Again, I’m not criticising science, I’m just pointing out the limitations. Sure, in the instances where science leads to technical innovation - tangible engineering processes, etc. then it is easier to accept knowledge as being generally true, but even then, when it comes to technology, there can be an overlap of scientific processes which are not all necessary, but just improve efficiencies.
Applied science has tangible results that can be observed repeatedly, but even then the results are limited. Consider with your plane example, there are multiple factors involved in flight - some of which could, to a layperson especially - mask hypothetically “unnecessary” science. If a paper plane can fly (glide) and land with basic aerodynamics and thrust, a layperson could reasonably consider that a plane with basic aerodynamics and thrust could fly safely. The fact that more advanced aerodynamics like wing shapes allowing a differentiation of air speeds, etc. make a significant difference is not going to be obvious to a layperson, and that’s just within applied sciences. When one considers the wider fields of science, then things like the higgs boson (higgs field) are fundamentally crucial for not just flight but for the existence of all matter as we know it, but a successful plane journey doesn’t demonstrate the higgs boson (field) is valid science (it is not a means of objectively verifying the presence of the higgs field)
Once again, my argument here is simply an acknowledgement of limitations, not a criticism of science. Yes, some things can be verified through application, but not all things can be, and what an application verifies can be subject to reasonable interpretation also.
Which is fine, I’m not disputing that. But that point doesn’t address the original issue being discussed here.
“Better” is subjective - it’s dependent on the context and the goal. It’s a category error again, because you’re trying to compare methods in a manner that is like comparing apples and oranges, which in itself is biased.
When it comes to things that can have measurable results, then sure, objective evidence/verification through empirical means is the most effective way to obtain those measurable results, but that’s dependent on there being measurable results in the first place.
Hence my point that objective evidence/verification is a product of a particular methodology and fits within the framework of science.
Disagreeing on the basis that one method suits the framework of science better is illogical because you’re ignoring the very point I made supporting my position that there are other frameworks - frameworks which don’t have measurable results.
It’s like using scales. If you’re trying to measure the weight of an item, then scales are an ideal tool for this. But if you want to measure how aerodynamic a plane is, weighing it on scales isn’t going to be any help whatsoever.
As another example, even if you want to weigh something, the same tool isn’t necessarily appropriate in all circumstances - if you want to weigh the Earth, turning the scales upside down is only going to prove the person doesn’t understand the gravity of the situation.
If you want measurable results, and measurable results are possible, and you have the means to obtain those measurable results, then objective verification/evidence is appropriate. If any of these premises are removed, the conclusion no longer fits - a different method is needed.
If one tries to make a comparison between methods, sure, one method may produce something much more helpful and definitive - just as our scales example can give a weight down to the gram, or even smaller measurements depending on the specific type of scales used.
But when it comes to weighing the Earth or other astronomical bodies, the available methods for doing so are going to be much less accurate by comparison, and the reason is a limitation of the method used, coupled with a limitation of alternative but more accurate methods. All the precision in the world won’t help if the tool isn’t appropriate.
the key word here is possible. Science allows for subjective bias to be substantially mitigated - the framework is conducive to this - the nature of science, dealing with empirical reality, allows for reproducibility.
However not all things are appropriate for this method. If the method isn’t appropriate, then what is possible may diminish accordingly, just like the scales accuracy example above.
It’s not a strawman. I never said anyone was claiming it - I was giving an example of how there can be something that cannot be objectively evidenced/verified. The fact that you also acknowledge it is an entirely subjective evaluation supports the point I’m making here. Some things don’t fall within the method by which objective evidence/verification can apply.
This is another case of you using a false equivalence when claiming a false equivalence.
We’re not talking about claims here. We’re talking about belief with or without critical thought. If someone was making a claim, then they would have the burden of proof.
As per the quote of my comment you included, “holding such a view” does not equate to making a claim.
Claims are a different category entirely and not applicable to the discussion at hand.
It’s not a false equivalence, I never claimed they were the same thing, quite clearly critical thought is not a definitive position, how critically one scrutinises one’s own beliefs is a personal choice, you can’t call someone’s position fallacious just because it doesn’t agree with your own, but without any objective verification one could believe literally anything, so calling this critical thinking seems dubious.
Based on your subjective opinion, it clear that objective verification is a powerful tool used in methods that have exponentially more success at understanding objective reality.
That’s a matter of opinion, however it is clear one would be setting a much lower bar for credulity.
Religions arrive at wildly different conclusions, using subjective beliefs. Whereas methods that use objective verification to remove as much subjective bias as possible are exponentially more reliable at understanding objective reality.
I think it is, unless one claimed they were the same maybe, but that it is much more reliable than not using objective verification, is not a claim that critical thinking and objective verification are the same.
Not very critical if it can return any result one wishes, which is rather the point.
Of course they can, whether they do is another matter, but also moot in terms of measuring the efficacy of science, and objective verification, science itself does this, and the results whether understood or not are vastly more reliable than simply indulging in purely subjective belief.
So what, if they did the results would be the same, that’s the point.
Even were it true, it wouldn’t make the method any less reliable, though science’s efficacy is of course objectively verifiable and manifest in its success, whether one understands why or not. A flat earther may not understand the ramifications of the science they are ignoring, but they denying objectively verifiable facts in favour of subjective belief.
It isn’t just a bare appeal to numbers, that consensus reflects a weight of objectively verifiable evidence, testing and experiment to replicate the same results, you’re oversimplifying. There simply is not comparison in trusting science as a method and subjective religious belief.
The whole purpose of which is to remove subjective bias, whether it be deliberate or accidental.
No it doesn’t, that is most definitely a false equivalence, since the method (science) one is trusting accepts results only when sufficient and sufficiently objective evidence underpins it, the results are objectively verifiable, and have been objectively verified, this makes it exponentially more reliable than beliefs that cannot be supported by any objective evidence.
Of course there is, whether people prefer to indulge the wishful thinking of subjective bias is another matter, or use outright mendacity, the objective fact remains the same, just as many religious people do of course. Pretending prayer works for example, even when it demonstrably offers no discernible results when it is subjected to critical scrutiny, and objectively tested.
Well you’re pointing out how people may misunderstand it’s methods, but to what end? It is exponentially more successful than any other method, precisely because it removes subjective bias, and demands objectively verifiable results.