Religion teaches one to not think critically.

[Assyriankey]

When someone yells snake, the child who replies with "Let me confirm your statement" is doomed...

When someone instructs you not to go up on high places whenever God is thundering out His anger and you decide to test the wisdom of this statement then you just might be cut down by God's sword (lightning).

When an elder says "Don't eat pork because God says it's unclean" and the skeptical adolescent eats it and then dies from trichinosis, we're seeing skepticism being naturally selected against.

Yes, these examples are fine. But you can also look at it from an information economics standpoint.

You've programmed things. Which means you've reused components other people have developed. You don't necessarily know how they work, but you know they (usually) work. Think of how much worse off you'd be if you had to develop everything for yourself, aside from let's say a basic operating system which came preinstalled. Taking software other people have put in the thought and effort to develop and reusing it is much, much, much more efficient, and since those programs have generally been tested by large numbers of other people, it's more reliable than writing your own, too, a lot of times. The same advantages would logically exist for reusing other people's ideas. There's a cost to writing your own code, and a cost to testing out other people's code. The optimal point is where the marginal cost of an extra hour of testing/coding = the marginal benefit in terms of reliability of the software you decide to run. No testing at all leads to large problems, but testing out every possible code-path and reviewing the source of every piece of software on your computer line by line is often not feasible. The question then becomes, what forces are influencing that point of optimality, and are any of those forces changing?

In NASA, they review each and every line of code multiple times, because if the software fails, people die. For other software, the standards aren't as strict, and that's fine.

How does this apply to ideas? Well, there are some ideas that should be thoroughly tested, because if you're wrong about them, something really bad happens. But in a lot of cases the worst that will happen is you'll have periodic crashes and have to reset, maybe you'll lose some work, but no big deal. The idea that everyone should be super-skeptical about everything doesn't work when you balance the costs against the benefits. And we can also look at what factors are changing the point of optimal testing. One factor I think is influencing this is, we have more available time and better testing tools and methodologies than we used to. Which means we can afford to test things out more thoroughly than used to be practical. And so, because we have more resources available to devote to testing out ideas, the end products are going to be better over time.

JM, yes but are skepticism and gullibility biological traits?  You describe a rationale that describes someone choosing between skepticism and gullibility on a case-by-case scenario but this is not what I am talking about.

If skepticism and gullibility (and curiosity too) are biological traits then their prevalence in our species means these traits have been positively selected by our past environments.

[Former Believer]

Then you seem to be saying that to have effective critical thinking skills negates the possibility to believe in God.

No, I wouldn't go that far.  What I am saying is that I often see Christians turn off their critical thinking skills in defense of their deity.

[red77]

Then you seem to be saying that to have effective critical thinking skills negates the possibility to believe in God.

No, I wouldn't go that far.  What I am saying is that I often see Christians turn off their critical thinking skills in defense of their deity.

In that case I'm not in disagreement. The only ammendment I would add is that in many cases it's a defence of a doctrine as oppose to God. But I suppose thats also subjective...

[Assyriankey]

I mean we're biologically programmed (evolved by natural selection) to accept others' instructions as being true without first subjecting the 'truth' to rational inquiry.

I've commanded a stranger's children to leave what I considered to be an unsafe area and these kids immediately complied.  They didn't stop to consider the truth of what I was saying, they just obeyed.  It's this sort of mechanism that I'm referring to.

I have to wonder if that's more because the children saw you as an authority figure (which is taught behavior) rather than any biological programming. Because there are some kids who would look at you and say "You ain't my daddy"--that would have been me LOL.

Like you were ever going to know who your daddy was :)

I think all kids, at least up to a certain age (say 6,7,8 years old), automatically comply with an adult's commands when the commands are delivered in the right tone (and that the child can understand the command).  Children of a certain age tend to trust adults implicitly.  Yes, there are exceptions to this behaviour but, in less safe environments, these exceptions would tend to be more dangerous than complying, IMO.

[Assyriankey]

Therefore, I like to think my "normally functional critical thinking skills" have returned and, that being so, has brought me even closer to "knowing God" than what had been offered me through religion beforehand.

"have returned..."

There is little doubt in my mind that regular 'from-the-pulpit' knowledge of God tries to limit honest enquiry about God's existence and what the bible might actually mean.

[Waldo]

I believe it does.  I have a tendenancy to want to want to question every preacher I run across.  I even wrote to Doug Bachelor not long ago bringing what I believe to be incorrect teaching to his attention.  I received a generic response from one of his staff along with one of his sermons on the topic.

[rickymooston]

JM, your post on idea re-use basically explains why language evolves!!!  I agree that religion is partially a side effects of the existance of language to communicate memes. (This is one of your posts where every statement makes one want to say, "it depends" ... often that is covered by a later part of your post.  )

Following your reuse example, simple means such as "building a bear trap" or a fishing net probably were transfered without language. One can watch somebody else do something?

Example, my friends twin daughter got out of her crib by crimbing on her teddy bear.  Her brother saw her and copied.  Simple meme, transfered without language.

In terms of your software analogy. You basically seemed to have touched on not only the field of software engineering but in particular the design of mission critical systems. Obviously, in everything we do as humans, we reuse ideas and patterns based on previous experience. That means in fact, on ALL stages of the process, key ideas are used that have been "tested" to "some extent".

First of all, you should note that its invalid to view software development as "coding" and "testing". Seriously. Likewise, with ideas, perhaps.  Testing in itself is a complex issue and it is in fact impossible to make a non-trivial system bug free.   
-- For this reason MANY critcial systems are extremely limited in what they actually do; e.g., one of my friends worked on an artificial heart. There was almost no code involved.)
--Given the systems have software bugs (hardware failures as well) and we know we can't fix them all, another approach frequently taken is to have a "fault recovery system". If a really bad problem, some sort of recovery mechanism is engaged such as a processor reset. (I'm told that NASA has three processors making a calculation or descision and an "election" is performed.)
--- For the record, 100% code coverage and 100% code inspected is rarely enough in a sufficently complex system, assuming its possible. (It is trivial to prove you cannot fully test software by the way.)

In any case, you started late in the development cycle

Requirements:  In most software systems the gathering of the correct requirements is very difficult.

Standards --  If you are working on a non-trivial software system, its frequently the case that the biggest problem is the getting requirements correct. (Some systems like the type of system I'm working on actually adhere to a set of complex standards that are agreed upon by very experienced standards experts from representives of all the critical vendors and customers.)  Its a given that standards reuse parts of existing standards.

Product/Feature Requirements

Typically the standards are huge and we have to pick and choose which standards to implement in our system and in order to do this, we have negotiate with the customer based on their needs. Obviously, experience from the previous systems is encorporated into this.

Design:

[/b]System Archetecture[/b]  Typically a non-trival system is composed of a large number of subsystems and even sometimes a variety of devices. This is generally a long term thing and thus it has to anticipate the sort of changes one expects one system to engage in. Obviously, if one developed other simular systems, an opportunity for reuse exists at either the concept level or in terms of already available components.

Feature Design ...

Feature Coding ...

The moose is getting lazy. Different product types have different sets of standards.  ...

Trying to give you a picture what a real software world might look like but it depends on the system and the shop.

The sort of requirements a critical system can have?

The DMS-100 produced by Nortel Networks was legally allowed 4 minutes downtime per year. (I think, there might have been one case where that was broken.) It contained about 30,000,000 lines of code developed over the course of more than 20 years!!!  Obviously, it had bugs but for the most part it worked really well.  Other vendors systesm would likely be similar.

[JustMyron]

Hi Ricky.

1. You're right, ideas can transfer without language, by observation and mimicry. I'm trying to wrap my mind around non-linguistic consciousness, and where the line between conscious observation and subconscious information processing should get drawn. I haven't yet been able to break that down and put it into words. When I do, I'll start talking more about non-linguistic consciousness. But anyway, I think expressing things in words is one important function of consciousness.

2. I was using software development as an analogy. I understand that software development is more complicated than I outlined, but I had a point to get across and I hoped it would transfer to both Assy (who knows how software development works) and others who aren't as familiar with it. Going into the details of the software development process would have been counterproductive - the point isn't to demonstrate a knowledge of computers, but to get people thinking about their assumptions regarding the critical thinking process. The key take-away was this: People often assume that more critical thinking is always better, but perhaps that's not always the case.

###

JM, yes but are skepticism and gullibility biological traits?  You describe a rationale that describes someone choosing between skepticism and gullibility on a case-by-case scenario but this is not what I am talking about.

If skepticism and gullibility (and curiosity too) are biological traits then their prevalence in our species means these traits have been positively selected by our past environments.

Are you suggesting that skepticism and gullibility are biological traits because you know what the biological basis for these characteristics is, or just because you think they exist before people are consciously aware of them, and probably have evolutionary advantages, so they're likely to be biological in nature?

As Ricky has pointed out, not all things that are learned are necessarily consciously processed. Is a baby who learns by mimicry endowed with a biological knowledge of how to get out of its crib? Probably not, because we can observe the baby learning this skill. Could that baby, when it gets older, explain where the knowledge came from? Also, probably not.

Unless we can determine where the biological roots of skepticism come from, I don't think we should assume there are biological roots. It's fine to look for them on the basis that they might exist, but reaching a conclusion that that's where skepticism comes from is premature. I think it's possible we can do a calculus of what's in our best interest without being aware we're doing it, as we can learn how balls move when thrown by watching it happen. I think of certain now-departed members who tended to lie and manipulate, and I am amazed at the complexity of behaviour which is both learned, and yet practiced without thinking about it or consciously/critically analyzing (or even being fully aware of) what you're doing.

If skepticism and gullibility (and curiosity too) are biological traits then their prevalence in our species means these traits have been positively selected by our past environments.

And if skepticism and curiosity are learned personality traits, then they will be positively selected for by our present environments, when they are present, and selected against in present environments, when they are absent. When they are no longer beneficial, they will be discarded, during a person's lifetime.

So the question is, can a person who starts off curious or skeptical become less so over time? I say yes. Which leads me to think skepticism and curiosity are learned behaviours rather than innate.

The line between biological/innate and learned behaviours is blurred though. I recall a science podcast where someone was on talking about how they found that physical touch from parents released hormones which affected a baby's brain development, with the end result that more psychologically distant parents, who also cuddled their kids less, raised less empathic kids who had more problems interacting with others when they reached school age. How much of that is learned, how much of it comes biologically pre-programmed, and how much of it is biological and very difficult or impossible to de-program after childhood, but not pre-programmed at birth? And I wonder if skepticism and curiosity, or conversely the lack of skepticism and the unquestioning acceptance of authority/dogma, might be a mix in the same way.

What was the point of putting forward the idea that curiosity/skepticism are biological in origin, anyway? If it was to suggest that they can't be changed (or are unlikely to change) during life in response to someone's present environment, I'd disagree.

[Assyriankey]

JM, yes but are skepticism and gullibility biological traits?  You describe a rationale that describes someone choosing between skepticism and gullibility on a case-by-case scenario but this is not what I am talking about.

If skepticism and gullibility (and curiosity too) are biological traits then their prevalence in our species means these traits have been positively selected by our past environments.

Are you suggesting that skepticism and gullibility are biological traits because you know what the biological basis for these characteristics is, or just because you think they exist before people are consciously aware of them, and probably have evolutionary advantages, so they're likely to be biological in nature?

The latter - biological in origin because our capacity to believe without evidence is ubiquitous in our young (and beyond).  Species don't acquire any characteristics that are (historically) without a net benefit.

A clarifying note: I don't intend skepticism and gullibility to be understood as two different traits, rather that they are two sides of the same coin.

Unless we can determine where the biological roots of skepticism come from, I don't think we should assume there are biological roots. It's fine to look for them on the basis that they might exist, but reaching a conclusion that that's where skepticism comes from is premature.

I disagree.  If every human being has roughly the same behavioural characteristics then, excluding natural selection, how would this come about?

I can't think of any other mechanism that might be responsible except natural selection.

If skepticism and gullibility (and curiosity too) are biological traits then their prevalence in our species means these traits have been positively selected by our past environments.

And if skepticism and curiosity are learned personality traits, then they will be positively selected for by our present environments, when they are present, and selected against in present environments, when they are absent. When they are no longer beneficial, they will be discarded, during a person's lifetime.

You are saying that skepticism might be a meme (a cultural inheritance).  If so then it is the meme's elements (people, laws, customs, etc) within the propagating society that either survive or perish alongside with the meme.  An easy example of an element of the God meme in USA culture is the vain glorious printing of "In God We Trust" on their currency.   People are not the sole reproducing agents of memes.  Skeptical parents can (and do) produce gullible offspring.  Memes do not dismantle anywhere near as easy as what you suggest.

What was the point of putting forward the idea that curiosity/skepticism are biological in origin, anyway? If it was to suggest that they can't be changed (or are unlikely to change) during life in response to someone's present environment, I'd disagree.

I do not believe skepticism comes to us naturally.  I believe that gullibility (credulousness might be a better word) is near ubiquitous to our species, and it's especially prevalent in our children.  To a first order, our species will believe (and has done so over the years) in EVERYTHING we have ever imagined.

When I say change (from gullible to skeptical) I refer to whole societies, not to any particular individual.  There is no denying the susceptibility of our children to indoctrination.  Yes, our societies do the indoctrinating but why is it so effective?  I believe it's so effective because we are genetically gullible.

[JustMyron]

Unless we can determine where the biological roots of skepticism come from, I don't think we should assume there are biological roots. It's fine to look for them on the basis that they might exist, but reaching a conclusion that that's where skepticism comes from is premature.

I disagree.  If every human being has roughly the same behavioural characteristics then, excluding natural selection, how would this come about?

I can't think of any other mechanism that might be responsible except natural selection.

Sure, natural selection, but operating on our thought patterns, not on the biological bases for these thought patterns.

Right now there is an element of something very close to natural selection going on on the Internet, as computer viruses are designed and released, and some thrive and some don't, and systems are designed to defend against them and eradicate them, which forces them to become more and more sophisticated. Granted, the process of mutation is facilitated by humans writing code, but the dynamic is basically the same. Over the course of a year, there may be 3 or 4 waves of progressively more sophisticated viruses. And yet, during that time, the underlying architecture of a computer doesn't change.

Changes in biology are like changes in the chipsets and motherboards of computers. And changes in culture are like changes in the software. Both can happen, and both by something like natural selection, and yet, the biology can remain the same as the culture changes, and homogeneity in an aspect of culture doesn't imply (although it does suggest the possibility of) homogeneity in the underlying biology of people.

Five years ago, when I got my laptop (now in dire need of replacement) firewalls were not common at all. Now, you can't put your computer on the internet for 60 seconds without a firewall, or it's going to get infected. Does the fact that everyone has firewalls now mean that firewalls must somehow be built into the hardware of computers? Or does it just mean that basically all computers are facing, in some respects anyway, the same pressures in their current environemnt, which may or may not have existed for very long into the past?

If skepticism and gullibility (and curiosity too) are biological traits then their prevalence in our species means these traits have been positively selected by our past environments.

And if skepticism and curiosity are learned personality traits, then they will be positively selected for by our present environments, when they are present, and selected against in present environments, when they are absent. When they are no longer beneficial, they will be discarded, during a person's lifetime.

You are saying that skepticism might be a meme (a cultural inheritance).  If so then it is the meme's elements (people, laws, customs, etc) within the propagating society that either survive or perish alongside with the meme.  An easy example of an element of the God meme in USA culture is the vain glorious printing of "In God We Trust" on their currency.   People are not the sole reproducing agents of memes.  Skeptical parents can (and do) produce gullible offspring.  Memes do not dismantle anywhere near as easy as what you suggest.

I didn't suggest they dismantle easily, just more easily than biologically driven traits. Also, if skeptical parents produice gullible offspring at the same rate as credulous/gullible/etc. parents, then that undermines the idea that there is a genetic component to this personality trait. We would expect skeptical parents to produce skeptical children, and gullible parents to produce gullible children, if the roots of skepticism/gullibility are biological rather than sociological.

What was the point of putting forward the idea that curiosity/skepticism are biological in origin, anyway? If it was to suggest that they can't be changed (or are unlikely to change) during life in response to someone's present environment, I'd disagree.

I do not believe skepticism comes to us naturally.  I believe that gullibility (credulousness might be a better word) is near ubiquitous to our species, and it's especially prevalent in our children.  To a first order, our species will believe (and has done so over the years) in EVERYTHING we have ever imagined.

When I say change (from gullible to skeptical) I refer to whole societies, not to any particular individual.  There is no denying the susceptibility of our children to indoctrination.  Yes, our societies do the indoctrinating but why is it so effective?  I believe it's so effective because we are genetically gullible.

And I would say we are probably genetically suited to doing the equivalent of running software. What software we run (and whether it would be described as gullible or skeptical) is not determined by our biology, but by our current environmental conditions. You can indoctrinate someone into skepticism just as easily as some religious tradition. They will accept the "rightness" of being a skeptic uncritically, unless they're told not to.

As for why children would accept uncritically what their parents tell them, what's the alternative? Often, they have no access to or knowledge of other sources of information, and when they gain knowledge of these, they no longer accept what their parents say. Also, starting off with the assumption that your parents know what they're talking about is just inductive reasoning at work - when your needs and questions are simple (food, where is X, how do I tie my shoes) and your parents do have all the answers, positing a model where your parents will continue to have all the answers is natural and eminently reasonable.



I wonder, about the distinction between skepticism and doubt. Because perhaps what children lack is doubt, along with an appreciation for the complexity and confusing-ness of the world.

[Stardust]

Like you were ever going to know who your daddy was :)

I've always known my Father, and He loves you too, Assy 

I think all kids, at least up to a certain age (say 6,7,8 years old), automatically comply with an adult's commands when the commands are delivered in the right tone (and that the child can understand the command). 

LOL! You can "think" it all you want, but.....

Children of a certain age tend to trust adults implicitly. 

Trusting adults is a learned behavior, taught through parents who are nurturing. Parents who are non-nurturing raise children who do NOT trust adults, because their only comparison are the adults they cannot trust. Non trustworthy adults often, more than not depending on how rigid they are (especially if abusive), instill FEAR in their children of adults. So, it may not be that you can command a strangers children to leave an area you think is dangerous and they listen to you because they "trust" you, but maybe because they "fear" you and the repercussions of not obeying you. Or, maybe they even knew that the area was dangerous, and were guilty because they got called out by an authority figure. They didn't obey you necessarily because they trusted you. Over protective parents can foster serious gullibility in a child, and over-indulgent parents can foster a sense of "no authority" in children. Plus, some children have a more strong will and sense of self than other children. It's a mixture of the child's own temperament, plus parenting style.

[Spiritofprophecy]

Greetings in the name of Jesus:

Dear Freethinker:

I kept wanting  and wanting to post and agree in principle with you OP,  but in fear that my Christian brothers, who put faith in " Precept of men" religion might not receive it properly...

If I may, let me elaborate, that religion is of man, But the word (Bible) is of God. Man's religion has corrupted itself into some pretty self serving interpretations, from flat earth, to Insomnia as a demon possession. From some 200-300 kinds of denominations. God will and does abide in science.

But your original post, I found it of truth as to man made religions, which does stifle critical thought, and seeks to control the minds of its followers for power and wealth usually.

But the concept of God, and the Word, and Jesus giving his life to prove truth of God, still has merit. Unless your willing to give you life up and die, to prove God doesn't exist... then Prophets foretelling and the sacrifice would still have power and meaning.

An Omnipotent God who controls all things, can hide his face, and hidden truths, outside mans view,  and conceal himself, only revealed to people who "seek him"; who open their eyes to the light, only then can they see God in the world and verses of God. Sounds cryptic, but is truth. It's about us choosing God, coming to and seeking God..

I pray my words will not offend, if so, its mans choice not mine, God bless all Christians in forum and Non Christians...