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.

[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?

[PrayingMantis]

David, I truely appriciate your intelligence, but this is an example for one of the most stupid threads imaginable. And no, I don't think it's stupid because it's not politically-correct or anything (I care very little about PC) it is stupid because it it signifies a very superficial and childish way of looking at things, that remind me discussions of some 12 years old boys.

And sure as can be, this thread already brought us few of the most ridiculous lines I've read on 2+2 in a very long time:

From Peter666:

[ QUOTE ]
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).

[/ QUOTE ]

The amount of ignorance presented here is unbelievable. I almost want to cry.

I'm not a regular at this forum, so of course I mean nothing to any of you here, but since I do think that there are quite a few very intelligent people here (as I can say by reading from time to time) I think it's really sad that this forum discusses mainly all kinds of ridiculous questions with regard to "religion". I'm writing "religion" because IMO discussions about religion can be very interesting and go very deep, but it's definitely not what's going on here. This thread, as many of your other threads too, discuss "religion" in probably the most uninteresting possible way, as if all that is interesting about religion is "who is more logical", Protestants or Chatholics, or X or Y. Come on, this is 3rd grade level of discussing religion. I think that even in high-school you go deeper than that (I would admit that I don't know much about high-scools in the USA... maybe I'm wrong and this discussion represents very high level of thinking in comparison...)

"Religion" as a whole is a fascinating thing to discuss, mainly because it touches upon the most basic and often ancient ideas created by human-beings, and on the other-hand, some extremely complex religion systems were devoloped over time. Researching it, thinking about it, discussing all this, comparing those systems of "action" and "belief" can bring some incredible fruits. But not here, apparently.

Also, I would expect that a rather big variety of subjects could be discussed in a forum called "science, math, philosophy", other than "religion". But it doesn't look like you are much interested in anything but those little superficial "discussions" about "religion", and again, it feels like such a waste.

Now it's clear that something is really bothering you, on a personal level, with regard to what you might call the characterstics of that historical "Jewish-Christian" God, but IMHO, big parts of what seem to bother you are issues that were discussed endlessly before, in a much more thorough way than it's done here. I'm 100% positive that you might even learn one or two things if you bother to go deeper into texts that deal seriously with the philosphy of religion.

Again, I have all the respect for you as a very intelligent person, so I don't mean all this to be some kind of an insult.

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I should have clarified my statement a little better...sane enough to be a strict constructionist...it doesn't matter what they believe in real life as long as they interpret the law with a clear head and do not try to make decisions based upon their own agenda rather than the law. There are plenty of people of faith that have taken heat in their churches for making a decision based upon the law at hand. These people are only doing their job as they should.

Those are some nice ideas, unfortunately it will obviously be difficult to discuss the interesting aspects of religion with someone who is religious. It is like discussing the interesting aspects of mental health problems with someone who is insane.

Whereas two atheist can say "isn't it intersting how ancient humans created the idea of Gods in order to explain that which they didn't understand". The religious contributer will say "no, God created them". The atheists look at each other and roll their eyes, then decide to go to the pub instead. Perhaps the religious guy goes somewhere to hand over any cash he has on him and chant until any hints of doubt are eliminated.

Thats why there won't be many other discussions than is it true or isn't it?

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]

[ QUOTE ]
unfortunately it will obviously be difficult to discuss the interesting aspects of religion with someone who is religious.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are very wrong, for a fact. Few of the best writers, researches and thinkers in the academic field/s of philosophy/history of religion (sepecific religions and religion at large) are religious people (coming from a variety of different religions), and not necessarily researching their "own" religion. Also, throughout history, some of the most interesting, provocative and deep discussions ABOUT religion were between religious people, sometimes very religious people.

Unfortunately, you, as others here, have an extremely narrow idea about what it means to be religious. And the discussions here reflect this narrowness.