To Those Who say That A Well Trained Devout Catholic

[David Sklansky]

would, on average, make just as good a general or Supreme Court Justice as a well trained agnostic, suppose I changed Catholic to:

1. Devout Lutheran

2. Devout Jew

3. Moderate Muslim

4. Buddhist

5. Scientologist

6. Fundamentalist Christian (believes the bible literally)

7. Someone Who Truly Believes in Astrology

8. A Satan Worshiper

9. A Muslim Extremist Who Believes in the 72 Virgins

10 Someone Who Truly Believes in the Tooth Fairy

I am assuming all of the above are well trained AND that they will put aside their beliefs when doing their job. In other words if they do not perform as well as the agnostic it is because they can't think as well. Given that, which of the above would rate to do as well as the Catholic and agnostic?

[Peter666]

Essentially you are asking: which of those faiths has the least chance of interfering with logic and reasoning?

I say it is about a tie between the Jew and Moderate Muslim, followed by the Lutheran. Because it is a set of unquestionable commands, the Jewish faith can look at questions without interference (so long as none of their commands strictly forbids them to do this). Islam is similar in that it is a very simple faith. You must believe Allah is God, Mohammed is his prophet, and follow some protocols. These again do not interfere with logical reasoning as they are abstract to it, like the Jewish faith.

The Lutheran is similar in that he can claim a simple "faith alone" without recourse to logic. He can look at logical questions abstractly, however, I say this with reservation because the Lutheran opens himself up to subjective reasoning just like his faith does when examining questions in detail. In this case, it would be important to study the judicial record of the Lutheran to make sure his logic is sound.

The others on the list should not be considered for a position on the supreme court, or any position where important decision making is involved. They are too emotional, crazy, or completely anti-logic. For example, the whole purpose of Buddhism is to eliminate thought and reasoning to reach Nirvana! How can a Buddist be considered for a position where logic and reasoning is involved? But on the other hand, it is this lack of reasoning which makes Buddism popular with many Hollywood celebrities.

The fact that somebody is highly intelligent and can reason with apparent logic does not keep them from making highly suspect decisions.
Most of the Nazi's who created the 3rd Reich and the concentration camps were LAWYERS. It was all done legally and so-called reasonably by their standards of the day. Slavery was legal as was Christ's crucifixion.
In all of these cases, it was the intelligentsia who logically decided to do what is now considered unthinkable.

g

[PrayingMantis]

Again, to make one of my points, back to Peter:

[ QUOTE ]
For example, the whole purpose of Buddhism is to eliminate thought and reasoning to reach Nirvana! How can a Buddist be considered for a position where logic and reasoning is involved?

[/ QUOTE ]

You have such a little idea with regard to the things you are talking about (with such confidence!) it is just painful. Actually painful. I feel pain now.

It's fine that you have never heard anything about the _great_ and rich tradition of Buddhistic philosophy, logic, and systems of reasoning, but why do feel the need to expose your ignorance in such a way?

[Peter666]

"it is just painful. Actually painful. I feel pain now."

I think you are proving my point. One should not have such an emotional reaction to a topic of discussion. That pain is what influences your decision making process and is dangerous when it comes to rational, logical thinking.

I have studied Buddism, but please feel free to educate me on any systems of logic that they have that would warrant their position as a judge, mathematician or scientist. Are there any famous Buddhists that fall into that category of professions?

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
"it is just painful. Actually painful. I feel pain now."

I think you are proving my point. One should not have such an emotional reaction to a topic of discussion. That pain is what influences your decision making process and is dangerous when it comes to rational, logical thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I just feel pain when encountered with sever ignorance, in disguise of knowledge. It is the same pain I feel when I encounter stupidity. What you think/say about the consequences of this pain is simply not true.

[ QUOTE ]
I have studied Buddism

[/ QUOTE ]

No you haven't. Unless by "studied" you mean watching a show on your travel channel.

[ QUOTE ]
but please feel free to educate me on any systems of logic that they have that would warrant their position as a judge, mathematician or scientist. Are there any famous Buddhists that fall into that category of professions?

[/ QUOTE ]

have you ever heard about a tiny, exotic and unimportant country called Japan, for instance? Population 128,000,000, from which the huge majority observe Buddhism? Does this little piece of information answer your last question?

And sorry about not "educating" you here about Buddhist systems of logic, but, hmmm, they exist. You shouldn't find this fact very difficult to verify, if, for some reason, you don't believe me.

[Peter666]

Well I watched "Little Buddha" with Keanu Reeves, certainly that counts for something.

There are as many Buddhist sects in Japan as there are Protestant sects. Their views differ widely so it is hard to formulate a coherent doctrine.

The so called "logic" of Buddhism is a rhetorical device that has no fundamental similarity with the deductive reasoning of Western thought as formulated by the ancient Greeks.

Your arguments of feeling sad and bad don't cut it I'm afraid.

[imported_luckyme]

Peter666 [ QUOTE ]
Essentially you are asking: which of those faiths has the least chance of interfering with logic and reasoning?

[/ QUOTE ]

DS, I guess we need some clarification because it won't be very meaningful if some are answering this 'poll' question based on Peter666's interpretation and those who base their answers more on your statement

[ QUOTE ]
In other words if they do not perform as well as the agnostic it is because they can't think as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

In short, the 'not thinking well' is a cause rather than effect. ??

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
would, on average, make just as good a general or Supreme Court Justice as a well trained agnostic, suppose I changed Catholic to:

1. Devout Lutheran

2. Devout Jew

3. Moderate Muslim

4. Buddhist

5. Scientologist

6. Fundamentalist Christian (believes the bible literally)

7. Someone Who Truly Believes in Astrology

8. A Satan Worshiper

9. A Muslim Extremist Who Believes in the 72 Virgins

10 Someone Who Truly Believes in the Tooth Fairy

I am assuming all of the above are well trained AND that they will put aside their beliefs when doing their job. In other words if they do not perform as well as the agnostic it is because they can't think as well. Given that, which of the above would rate to do as well as the Catholic and agnostic?

[/ QUOTE ]

David,

As long as all these people are strict constructionists and do not legislate from the bench, all of these people would rule just fine. We would have to assure ourselves that they were all sane people, however.

[ QUOTE ]
We would have to assure ourselves that they were all sane people, however.

[/ QUOTE ]

What sane person believes in the tooth fairy? Or that the alignment of the stars can predict the future? Or that Satan is worthy of worship?