Slashdot Mirror
Analytic Thinking Can Decrease Religious Belief
Freshly Exhumed writes "A new University of British Columbia study finds that analytic thinking can decrease religious belief, even in devout believers. The study, which will appear in tomorrow's issue of Science (abstract), finds that thinking analytically increases disbelief among believers and skeptics alike, shedding important new light on the psychology of religious belief."
will burn in hell.
Well Duh.
Not analytic thinking, just thinking should work
Trolling is a art,
No one with any working braincells believes the world was created in 6 days , woman was created from a spare rib etc etc.
25 At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. 26 Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do.
This isn't shedding new light. This is confirming the obvious.
I guess it works on global warmers then.
See you back in 20 years :-)
I think more, and when I think more, I disbelieve more?
So, this research can be characterized as, "when I'm faced with the fact of my own poor eyesight, or I'm forced to look at art, I hate God". Yeah, that's good science...
mmm... yeah... You see, we're putting the cover sheets on all TPS reports now before they go out...
I guess it works on global warmers then.
Well, if it works as suggested then it will cause those who believe in global warming purely because someone told them it was happening to go and look at the evidence and decide for themselves, in which case they'll keep their opinion intact but will have come to it by a more scientific approach. Win-win.
A new study finds that intelligence can decrease stupidity! Maybe the two teams could join forces.
Knowledge is power; knowledge shared is power lost.
I work with a staggering number of engineers who are very religious and it has always boggled my mind. How can anyone with an analytical mind possibly accept things like Noah's ark?
NOT! That said, it depends on the depth of your imagination. If the universe is essentially a simulation, the creators of the simulation would fit many of the parameters of a god, from our point of view. Even without that, there have to be plenty of other sentients in the universe that have been around a lot longer than us, perhaps even a few that survived the destruction and creation of the universe. These too, would fall pretty far in to god territory.
Of course, this is just the christian biased, deity-oriented "god" stuff. More abstract religious concepts like Atman, the ain sof, the tao and nirvana probably were never included in the study.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
"God Needs Booze"... bring on the Lordweiser.
... that you can get by, or even thrive, without significant analytical thought (I specifically exclude sociopathic ends; there it seems there is plenty of it going on there).
Does it increase disbelief or decrease belief ?
Some of us are just Brain Washed into believing in things that don't make any sense. To me, it's more of a mental disorder.
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
My personal epiphany was the observation that religion and place of birth are highly correlated. It seemed fairly arbitrary at the age of 10 and still does. It has not made me into an atheist though. People from many walks of life are on a righteous road.
Makes perfect sense.
You certainly see this with muslims; they've gone backwards culturally and economically. Quite possibly, the great Islamic revival is a symptom of economic and social collapse, and people fall back on superstition, religion and crazy and paranoid conspiracy theories.
Having dealt with many of these people, they are incredibly paranoid, superstitious people utterly prone to ridiculous conspiracy theories (especially if it involves Jews). They're so credulous, they'll believe anything -- like the lie that Jews were told to evacuate the Twin Towers before 9/11.
I have found that engineers tend to be less devout than the average population, which would support that post, since most engineers are trained to and routinely have to exercise analytical thinking every day.
Confirmation bias.
This hints at the key problem, which is (or ought to be) as much a quandary for religion itself as for scientific studies of it. Almost all of the questions in Gervais and Norenzayan's study related to religion as a literalist folk tradition — an aspect of lifestyle. This is how it manifests in most cultures, but that barely touches on religion as articulated by its leading intellectuals: for Christianity, say, philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas, David Hume, Immanuel Kant and George Berkeley. The idea that the beliefs of those individuals would have vanished had they been more analytical is, if nothing else, amusing. Gervais and Norenzayan’s findings should help to combat religion as an indolent obstacle to better explanations of the natural world. But it can’t really engage with the rich tradition of religious thought.
Vatican announces the lost 11th commandment, thou shall not think.
"The researchers’ general approach was to test volunteers — in some cases, Canadian undergraduates, in others, as the paper explains, a “nationwide (though nonrepresentative) sample of American adults recruited online”. Both sets of volunteers constitute only a limited sample, as Gervais and Norenzayan acknowledge." So, how many flaws in the study can you find in this one sentence?
you just described every teabagger and right wing nut-job out there.
As Homer would say: D'oh!
Throw out all the junk science for a starters. Not much need for keeping a meticulous record of things that have long been proven wrong.
Presuambly what was included was one group of theories at the time but science has moved on, or, more accurately, science has been invented since the bible was written.
Just a thought, but is it any less likely that the world was created in 6 days than an entire universe being created in just a few minutes (adding on a little bit of time for significant expansion)?
If we take the original meaning of religion, which was from a Latin root that means "binding" and could be taken as "things that bind society together"* then theologians and sociologists have actually been quite good at asking some very hard questions about this, challenging religious and non-religious hierarchies.
If we take notions of "God", again theologians have been pretty good at analysing out what is mere superstition, animism and so on, from the largely unanswerable question about why or how anything at all exists. Theologians like Hans Kung and Don Cupitt, along with any number of Episcopalians, Unitarians, Quakers, Reform Jews and other progressive groups, have tried to deal constructively with the apparent human need to believe in something and share cultural practices. This hasn't always been totally successful, but a quick fact check on whether you'd prefer to live in an area where the main religion is one of the groups I've mentioned versus one where it was, say, strongly pro-Pope Catholics, Islamists or the Bible Belt might provide a clue as to whether they're on the right track or not. The simple facts of Apple-worship, programming wars, and pseudo-religions like Libertarianism, Marxism and "Free market economics" show that atheists can show quite strong religious tendencies.
So the real question is what this study means by "decrease religious belief". After all, when Phlogiston was discredited, you could argue that this resulted in a decrease in belief in the reliability of chemists. Do they really mean "decrease acceptance of bullshit?" I'd go with that.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
An obvious point of clarification is needed in the way this has been reported. "Religious Belief", as has been posited, is belief with respect to the existence of supernatural entities. But isn't Religion about collective belief, rather than supernatural belief? I would have thought "Theistic Belief" would have been a more appropriate target for the authors to address.
Myu:
IMHO, the more I learn about Particle Physics and Cosmology, the more I believe in Intelligent Design. Read Martin Rees "Just Six Numbers", there is a credible Physicist presenting straight information. I have no problem mixing Religion and Science. Bio-ethics is my problem issue, but again IMHO, those come down to moral issues, informed by my faith, not hard science.
"If the only tool that you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." Donny Rumsfeld
A "devout" believer - one who holds to and lives by their beliefs very strongly - can be very devout and yet not have a firm understanding of why the things they believe are true.
For example, I'm a Christian, and many Christian people I know (the vast majority, actually) have not spent significant time studying systematic theology (everything the Bible teaches on particular common topics) and analytically considering the evidence for and against what they believe. So when they are questioned, often I find that they reconsider things they once believed by "blind faith" - belief without a good reason or evidence to believe. Hopefully, their new conclusions are guided by sound analytical thinking and not the same blind faith.
This process is healthy for them, because it gets them to abandon bad ideas or false religious doctrines, and it helps them to back up with a firm foundation good ideas and those religious principles that are true. For example, "love your neighbor as yourself" is universally understood to be a true religious principle - in that it goes well with you if you consider other people and look out for their interests as much as you would your own. That's not one that's going to be disproven by analytical thought, but many questionable beliefs will.
Some people are mature enough to recognize that beliefs that make them feel good about the world may not be an accurate description of reality. They can compartmentalize their religious and scientific views, not allowing one to interfere with the other. This is fine, as far as I am concerned -- as long as nobody is trying to inject religion into science (or worse, engineering), people can hold whatever beliefs they wish and practice whatever religion they want.
Palm trees and 8
That evacuation never happened, and we do not talk about it.
Isn't religion in essence a belief in something that relies on irrationality to exist, at least in people's minds? If that's so, than it would seem to be tautological that "analytic thinking can decrease religious belief."
I make hardware RNGs, which give 2.5849625 bits of entropy per use in theory (actual performance dependent on usage).
You might as well say that we should throw out the junk science from Harry Potter. Neither collection of stories represents a science textbook, the only difference is that large numbers of people think that the bible is an accurate record of the history of the world, whereas nobody above the age of five thinks that Harry Potter is real.
Palm trees and 8
Maybe we could all do with a little more analytical thinking, including the slashdot readership, but lets not go too far. Some of my favorite people in history have been lacking in that department, whether it be cocaine snorting musicians, diva movie stars or fearless sports stars.
In college, as part of the engineering degree program there has to be some credits in art/history/etc. I picked up a philosophy track which required an introduction to logic and rehtoric. I don't want to imply these classes ruined anything but it definitely opened my mind to multiple ideas. When you are asking fundemental questions of reality (Why aesthetics important? What defines good? Why is humanity valuable? etc) and find that although religion does have some answers but not all and are encouraged to keep looking and discussing it instead of being quiet and accept "the truth" then that erroded their fundementals.
People forget that you don't need a science to be encouraged about critical thinking.
Thinking and experimenting are two disjoint processes.
Analytical thinking reduces the experiential feedback, as you can see in schizophrenic personalities.
If you start meditating without object (that means concentrating your attention on the present and letting your thoughts pass), you'll increase your awareness of your surroundings and decrease the flow of thoughts. You'll experience and enjoy the reality more (even when the reality is tough) and spend less time thinking.
Analytical thinking is not correlated to intelligence, and believing is not correlated to dumbness.
Real belief is not taught, it's lived. If it cannot be experienced, it's useless.
Analytic Thinking Can Increase Religious Beliefs.
All depends on what you Believe in and what you Think.
please read to the end. this is a nuanced post.
I bet analytic thinking also decreases your ability to recall exactly which hue of blue you saw a couple of minutes ago, if you had to choose among several close ones.
religion has nothing to do with analytical thinking, just like recalling a color doesn't. does that mean color-recall is of benefit to no one? No. Does it mean religion is of benefit to no one? No.
For one thing, let me lay upon you the fact that religion is what directly led to mass literacy and civilization as we know it. The question isn't whether we should have religious beliefs that have nothing to do with science or analysis -- it's "what should those beliefs be." Democracy, equality and freedom of speech and conscience are some great beliefs to hold, for example. Analytic thinking won't lead you to hold any belief. (Almost by definition, but surely in practice).
The worst war criminals America has produced in the past decades since World War 2
(e.g.
https://www.google.com/search?q=american+war+criminals+kissinger
and you can find loads more)
were great scientific and analytical thinkers. So was Stalin. They just didn't hold the right beliefs.
Actually, there's evidence that our universe is fairly laid out, so the fact that "God does not play dice with the universe" holds some truth.
Is this what is meant when it is said, that magic was traded for science?
A miracle understood is not a miracle at all.
Swimming can make people less likely to drown!
Actually this is all many of us 'deniers' would ask. If the global warming believers would go over the data themselves and reach their own conclusions based on their own thinking without relying on 'experts' I would have a lot more respect for them. Unfortunately many people tend to treat science as if it were a religion and just believe whatever the 'experts' say without doing any thinking for themselves. As Francis Bacon cautioned, I prefer to stick close to the data itself and view any conclusions based on that data with the greatest degree of skepticism. Even the data itself should be questioned.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
I find the general remarks in here completely rude and ignorant. Logic and science were designed to define the natural and physical, and do a great job of that. Science and logic suck at trying to explain the supernatural and therefore discard it all as nonexistent. They can't prove it doesn't exist, but it frustrates them and must therefore be belittle and mocked.
Do your history research to see how many religious people throughout history are responsible for the foundation of most science.
jsut athnoer menagiensls ltitle psrhae for you to dcoede. Why do we wtsae our tmie dnoig tihs?
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." Albert Einstein, 1954
"1. An article says that if people analyze written articles and books, they won't believe them."
Except, and here is the fracture, the article doesn't say that.
Yeah thats stupid to listen to the experts. Its much more convincing when convenience store clerk says global warming is a hoax.
Lets get this over with... Fuck Off
He used powerful reasoning to defend and advance Christianity that persuaded me away from adolescent atheism - i.e. I got over it.
If you dare to engage his works, your critical thinking will be exercised.
FWIW
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish"
OMG! Einstein next to this dumb stupid article title. I'm enraged!!!1111
I demand a "Dr. Obvious/No shit Sherlock" icon!
I don't expect the spanish inquisition.
It doesn't work.
Dawkins used to reason with them. After years of getting nowhere he gave up and now resorts to insults. And I don't blame him. There's little to be gained by having a discussion with someone who's brain has had its critical reasoning ability turned off.
Dr Obvious there is a call for you on line 1.
"It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity."
Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
To summarize, a little logic will reject the beliefs in things like miracles that some religions put forth, but with much deep thought the mind will find that logical chains all meet at a single end, and that this end is evident in the foundations of all religions.
So basically what Bacon was saying is that God is a lot like an orange. First you have the skin (faith and beliefs, inedible to the analytical mind)... then the sweet, sweet innards (the binding ideas around which all religions are based, and which the mind seeks for nourishment)
And Bacon was quite the analytical thinker, being one of the innovators behind a little thing called the scientific method.
that replicates, disables certain parts of the hosts brain and controls their actions so it may spread and reproduce more effectively
not unlike the flukes and a whole host of parasitic entities
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liver_fluke
what has jebus ever done for us?!?
I see you continue to refuse to think for yourself, and decry any who do. What exactly are you so afraid they might find?
So, where does scholasticism fits in that, genius?
"Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has [...]" -Martin Luther
The more you think about things, the more you are going to find errors and omissions in any text or tract that claims to be "perfect", regardless of whether it's religion being discussed, science, medicine, or anything else. No one document or ideal is perfect and infallible; at best it's an approximation of "how things work". Even math texts have mistakes and "this exercise is left up to the reader" sections, so they're far from perfect.
I suspect that if there were widespread legions of followers of some older polytheistic religions, people's faith wouldn't be shaken so severely by the idea that their deity is wrong. Greek, Roman, and Norse religions are full of arguments, fighting, and other human failings of the gods, which implies that they are not perfect right from the outset.
Judeo-Christian-Muslim theology, on the other hand, is founded on the idea that God is perfect in every way. So when some argument of their religious text doesn't compute, a little bit of their foundation of faith is chipped away. There's just no avoiding the conclusion: the world is not perfect, so God itself is not perfect.
So how do "true believers" hang on to their faith? Simple. They blame all the ills and woes of the world on our own free will, and on Adam and Eve eating of the tree of knowledge. In other words, they literally consider knowledge and thinking to be bad things which mankind should never have been granted access to.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Oranges are orange.
What a surprise. So people who can think logical, and analytical, have trouble believing in God(s)?
And this is 'shedding important new light on the psychology of religious belief'?
And again I say DUH!
So, I am to crunch all the raw data myself, from instrumentation that I personally design and deploy, rather than relying on demonstrably good data processed time and again by numerous sources, all reaching the same conclusion, if I am to earn your "respect"? How about I just do the latter, and rely on a modicum of common sense when it comes to the researchers' reputations, and do just a bit of fact checking in my spare time? You can stuff your respect, bud.
No one with any working braincells believes the world was created in 6 days , woman was created from a spare rib etc etc.
D'oh!
I hate being bipolar; it's awesome!
Of course they don't correlate. The entire idea of religion is that it exists outside of logic, hence, exploring logical thought will prove that religious faith is founded in absolutely nothing. That is if logic is the end-all be-all of the universe. We could never know or understand anything that exists beyond logic because it would never make any sense (being illogical).
There is a lot we don't know about. Our knowledge of the "known" universe is minute compared to the size of it. We need two mathematical systems to study our physical world because of anomalies at scale. We cannot explain dark matter. What we do learn from distant galaxies and planets is already old news to the tune of some hundreds of millions of years.
Analytical thinking is a feedback loop because the more you know, the more questions you have. Much of what gets explained away by some religion is egregiously ignorant and we need to ask ourselves if we are doing the same to dismiss unknowns specifically as scientific anomalies. Even Einstein did not completely dismiss religion from his work (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/einstein.html).
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds
-Ralph Waldo Emerson (Used without permission)
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
I wonder about the duration of the effect. Is it just immediately following analytical thinking you're less inclined to report belief, but if you wait a week the level pops back up to normal? If it's just a temporary effect then that's more obvious and not as interesting. The full paper is paywalled so I can't tell.
on top-level talmudic scholars, then see how it fairs.
could it be?
I lost my faith when my pastor told me that there were no dinosaurs, because they are not mentioned in Genesis. I am very thankful for that, because she ensured that I rejected this idiocy before I was even 10 years old. Dinosaurs are fucking awesome!
Your argument has been rendered invalid.
Bats are not birds.
The entire magical show, among other things, of Sodom, The Resurrection, Rapture, The Dead Sea.
The apocrypha.
Pop along to the Skeptics Annotated Bible and have at it.
While the writer chose to target religious belief, wouldn't this model would apply to all intuitive beliefs where there is an undetermined causal element.
I see you continue to refuse to think for yourself, and decry any who do. What exactly are you so afraid they might find?
More "reasons" to waste my time with idiotic conspiracy theories?
Religion itself is just a primitive form of philosophy. The problem is with the believers themselves. They want to be told what to think so that they don't have to think for themselves. And they want to be emotionally comforted.
I think religious belief is 100% emotion based. Thinking simply has nothing to do with it. Believers believe because doing so makes them feel better. They feel both protected and part of a larger group. Without some kind of emotional payoff, a payload if you will, I don't think a religion would have any chance of becoming popular.
As a teenager I was the kind of militant atheist who would deliberately debate with believers for fun and I think I learned something from those exchanges about what motivates such people. The most common reason for believing in such nonsensical ideas which are entirely without evidence is 'intellectual hedonism', the penchant for believing something just because believing it makes you feel good. So you'll hear things about what a dry, inhospitable world it would be without their personal supernatural deity.
I must admit that I would prefer a world of werewolves and vampires and even of ghosts. Life would seem more interesting to me. But that doesn't lead me to believe in such things. I suppose that is one of the fundamental differences between rational skeptics and believers. Religionists believe in something because of how it makes them feel. They don't care whether it is factually true or not. Any arguments about logic or evidence completely miss the point. The only way to alter their beliefs is through their emotions. You would have to make an emotional impact. Not a logical one.
Another characteristic I have noticed is a fear or dislike of uncertainty. Religion grants certainty about all things. Science is not big on certainty. In fact science is all about uncertainty. A constant state of weighing the evidence. There is very little that science believes with 100% certainty. Well aside from global warming perhaps :). Scientists tend not to fear uncertainty. They might even embrace it. Not knowing something plants the seed of curiosity. Not fear. And something about which we cannot gather evidence might be something to wonder about, but that sense of not knowing does not motivate them to seek out a guru, someone who claims to know what they do not.
Many of the most interesting questions about our place in the world are simply not answerable. We may never know answers about what the edge of the universe is like or the larger perspective of worlds in a grain of sand. I would love to know whether our entire visible universe is just one grain of sand. I would love to know the grander structure that is behind all of the countless galaxies that seem to make up our world. I don't think we will ever have the answers to those sorts of questions. Some of us just accept that, but others cannot and seek certainty through blind belief.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
is this how the maximegalon institute of slowly and painfully working out the surprisingly obvious begins?
I bet their next study will conclude that 70% of all studies confirm things we already knew
This is what Einstein had to say about those who call him religious:
And in particular about the rumor that a Jesuit priest had debated with Einstein and converted him from Atheism (also wrong as Einstein greatly disliked being called Atheist as well).
And this is what he has to say about the word God itself
And, to round it out
His beliefs had God not as willful force beyond the universe, but as the universe itself. He sees the laws of physics not as something that God has created, but something that God is, something beyond us that we can but hope to catch a glimpse of. Something without an anthropomorphic will or mind, something that does not care for us at all. (He viewed this as important as we therefore must care for each other instead of relying on God and ignoring each other) I think you will find that while many leading scientists may, as Einstein, reject organized religion, most of them will nevertheless regard the Universe with reverence, many (including Einstein) referring to such reverence in spiritual terms. Essentially, a small and petty God preoccupied with murdering those who use their free will wrong by eating the wrong kinds of food, wearing the wrong kinds of clothes, planting crops in the wrong way, was and is inconsistent with those scientists views of the absolute majesty of creation.
At any rate, Einstein was perhaps even more displeased at those who would call him an Athiest as part of their OWN Argument from Authority. What he had to say about (loud) atheism was
He repeated such sentiment many times. Though he dislikes the Dogma of religion he does not wish to challenge believers lest he replace a (perhaps childish) belief with emptiness, saying "such a belief seems to me preferable to th
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
Analytical thinking decreases religious belief and skepticism. There is no reason to believe one way or the other if you actually think about it instead of just going by what other people you admire believe.
My personal view varies between God being 'what the universe came from' (be it explosion or what ever) to being God myself (as nothing can be proven to exist outside my perception).
There is a middle ground of intelligence where the non-believers reside.
Having considered the matter carefully, I've come to the conclusion that a person who has dedicated a large portion of their lives to the study of climate effects knows more about the subject than I do. In fact, on further reflection, I may have to admit that I am no longer an expert on everything in the way that I was during my teenage years.
- a (former) convenience store clerk
idk... maybe that greenhouses don't work?
Imagine that: if your brain starts working, you stop worrying about the the fictional man in the sky.
Color me amazed.
Everyone knows it's turtles all the way down.
The Digital Sorceress
Sure a study done by the "science" guys would say this. Now I want to see one done by the church.
therefore I disbelieve.
One person can not think in two things, or the brain can not effectively process two conscious thinking at the same IN A LONG TERM. It is like using your PS3 either for one game at a time.
Nails it best.
Thinking can decrease religious belief...
Funny, my belief in God is based on an analytical journey.
They've primed volunteers to perform analytical thinking, and then followed up with questions about their religious beliefs. I bet these results could be generalized. You could've substitute the topic of religious belief questions with anything else and I would've expected the same response (e.g. Do you believe in life on other planets?). If you're primed to think analytically, and then asked whether you believe in something without the chance to analyze it, why would you expect any other response than a rejection of blind belief (on average)?
E.g. Sort the following words alphabetically: Reason, Ponder, Analyze, Rationalize. Question: Do you believe in global warming?
What makes the study sweeter is that it primes the volunteers with some questions that show that their initial intuitive response is wrong! This casts doubt on what they would initially believe to be true, and then they follow up with questions regarding the convictions of their beliefs. Perhaps this study may also show that people don't really analyze or give deep philosophical thought to their beliefs?
Often, you shouldn't believe in something until you've had a chance to analyze it. A blind disbelief is as bad as a blind belief. However, on amoral topics, I'm sure we just trust someone else's popularized work and accept it to be true because it has no moral consequence on our lives (e.g. belief that up/down/charm/strange particles exist).
This is so obvious I must be missing something. Once a person begins to look at the world around himself critically, he realizes that there isn't an old Jewish man in the sky who will send him to eternal damnation for premarital sex? WOW, who would have thought that thinking would allow someone to see through the churches crazy rhetoric. I guess those of us who saw through the old man in the sky hoax a long time ago don't find this the big news that others do.
No sigs in BETA. Beta SUCKS.
Given technology progression and another billion years (or trillion?), I easily believe in a creator. I would say that analyzing where we are today strengthens belief in God. I could see the big bang kicked off by a Creator, accelerated ( outside of time ), then manipulated in what we call a day. I disagree with Evolution however. Dinos could possibly be from a previous run at earth where God cleaned the slate with a celestial collision, etc. Analytical thinking has strengthened my belief. I mean, come on... we can clone already and it's only been a few thousand years for us. Granted, we were only made in His image and may not have what it takes biologically to circumvent time, etc. but I easily believe it could happen by a better Being.
There's nothing to be afraid of by investigating things for yourself. It is encouraged. It's healthy. But I am going to be naturally skeptical of my own quick judgment about the situation in the same way that I'd be skeptical of my quick assessment of the state of my household plumbing versus the assessment of a qualified plumber. That's not to suggest I'm going to always blindly follow "professional" recommendations, but they do have one hell of a lot more experience than I do, and that's got to count for something compared to my own modest investigations.
No thinking increases religious belief.
would decrease belief in the methodology used in this study. Did anybody *read* the linked press release from UBC?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
During the days of the Puritans in the US, they used to worry about people becoming too logical, because such people might begin to doubt the existance of god.
Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
Have gnu, will travel.
This should be of no surprise to the followers of dharmic religions, when the buddhi (intellect) is active the paramatman (God within) is inactive. This is nicely illustrated by the iconography of Kali on the body of Shiva. Here Kali (representing Language and intellect) awakes and Shiva (the God-sense) sleeps.
Quickly: We can show scientifically the causes of diseases like schizophrenia (voices that are God talking to people), so to reply to someone else: the scientific community says he didn't hear from god just that he had a miswired brain/chemistry. His brain made up those voices, it didn't make it into some sort extra-planar antenna.
People need to feel good. They'll turn to nearly anything to help them feel good in times of stress. It's not a matter of intelligence (IQ is a woefully broken system for measuring intelligence, why do seemingly smart people use it? That's right! It still makes them feel good to quote a "high" number for themselves and a low one for "the masses), we're conflating the issue here. Someone who is not smart can also be analytical, it's merely a way of thinking about things. One way tends to bring healthier, more productive, proven ways of bettering our existence with knowledge and tools. The other brings good feelings and can bring a community together. Both are important, but I think the problem many have with religion is that it is often used for evil. It's been twisted since the beginning by power-mongers for their own ends and caused some of the worst disasters in human history.
1) Maybe a question is: where do you feel best?
Analysis of the world around you and application of that knowledge, or taking things for granted from an old book (if it's old it MUST be wise, right?) and a group of people who will accept you if you adhere to their beliefs? After all, humans need to feel good in order to live life reasonably well.
I've met very intelligent people who are Christians, however the one thing that sets them apart is that they seem to just need something to hang onto emotionally. Usually they've lost something: Their freedom, lifelong career, spouse, kids, etc. and suddenly they find this great thing called religion. Or they're indoctrinated when young. It makes them feel good. and gives them a social connection. Why do you think small towns and rural areas have more religion? I'll bet I know why: There's nothing else to do worth doing which brings a sense of useful social engagement.
Analysis also makes us feel good. We find repeatable patterns in the world and since humans are designed to find patterns, it helps us survive.
We also need good feelings and some social interaction.
If we don't get both we are probably not living an ideal life. I don't think religious people are insane, but they often seem to do things which might be contrary to their actual well-being just to feel good/accepted (that one is a scarily powerful idea, look at history). I think they're just using their instincts/brain tools to get the most from the world around them, just like analytics are (who happen to have the tools/knowledge/upbringing to employ analysis as their weapon of choice in life).
-
When the rational side of our brains, the Mind, starts to take over the thought and existence process, then will the Creative Side of our brains stop operating. The mind always tries to explain things, but things into little boxes and try to make sense of them. Religious Experience does not make sense in the way we are being thought currently, this is why it will not let the experience Come Into Reality.
When meditating, one tries to let go of the rational minds ever gabbering sound. This is why. Because it will always keep trying "This is not real. You are not experiencing this." And then the vision and experience will vanish instantly.
Empty your mind and the Truth Will Come Out. And it has nothing to do with the Wrathful God of modern day Main Stream Christianity just to clarify.
GeoKone.NET
There have been a lot of Christian analytical thinkers who rationally think about their faith. Another survey states
So people with more education are more likely to attend church than those with less education. I don't think one would want to argue that getting more education makes you less rational and analytical.
Science is man's attempt to describe God's creation.
Does the rest of the story remain true also? That the flood was so deep, and so far-flung and wide-spread that all natural terrain (mountain ranges and all) were completely covered, and remained covered for so long? That the waters were so deep and so all-encompassing as to be able to float that giant boat filled with two of every single species of animal (except the Unicorn...don't forget that song from the '60s) and keep it afloat and adrift for the huge length of time they were supposedly adrift? Is it true that a tree had actually survived all that time underwater so that subsequent to the receding of the waters, a dove could find a recognizably living and leafed branch and bring it back to the Ark? Are doves strong enough to carry an entire branch of water-logged leaves? (The next discussion will be whether sparrows are strong enough to carry coconuts.)
It's not about just "believing that the entire Earth did not flood", it's about the absolute lack of support or evidence or reality for any of the stories of the supernatural events in the bible. And as the original study that started this discussion points out, if you apply logic, reason, analytical thought, and the requirement for evidence to support claims before we accept them as fact; then you find that yes, indeed, the text is invalid.
There's a good video discussion titled 'the burden of proof' on YouTube that discusses a similar principle.
See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KayBys8gaJY or search for The burden of proof
Counting the number of "analytic" people ascribing to a particular worldview doesn't mean anything.
Average people code in VB. The majority of analytical people code in C#. -Really- analytical people, the minority, code in C++.
Demographic breakdown purely for example, but what has been demonstrated by this line of reasoning? Nothing.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
In other news, exercising common sense reduces acts of pure stupidity.
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
'Little thought' accurately describes your post. It's a clever little turn of phrase that is actually quite shallow and reflects a lack of understanding about what you mock.
For there to be no 'tools' ( laws of the universe) that God used, our entire existence would be magical, and constantly upheld by miracles from God.
This would be proof that God exists, and as such, one would not be free to choose whether or not to follow the word of God, as you would know without a doubt that He is real, He is there, and you will in fact burn in hell if you disobey Him.
Free agency is therefor gone in this scenario, and our existence- the test of what we do with the free will that God gave us- would have no point.
Now, I'm not much of a Christian. I have come to see how much good certain religions have done for humanity, and I see how little atheists have to offer that would do the same.
They offer mockery, derision, and emptiness to counter belief. Judeo-Christian belief (and the nations based thereon) offers charity, fellowship, self-restraint, functional guidance and, oh yeah, centuries of world dominance in all fields.
Humans are not purely rational, and it is fantasy to think the optimal society could be based on non-existent people. Pretending it's even possible requires a certain level of magical thinking.
I would caution you against feeling smug about imagining you're more rational than your fellow humans, as the emotional, irrational side of humanity is what makes everything possible.
There's a certain part of the brain responsible for emotions. If this is damaged, it leaves the rational part of the brain in charge. The result? Such patients are paralyzed by the array of options we face each moment, and are unable to properly analyze their choices- and hence do little at all. (Citation not handy. You're smart enough to find it on your own if you're actually curious.)
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
And the converse may even be true. Religious belief tends to be the enemy of all rational thought. The more you are prone to faith the less you may be prone to reason.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Erktrek,
We could do as Thomas Jefferson did: He believed that the ethical system garnered from the (bible reported) teachings of Jesus of Nazareth was the finest the world had ever seen. He also patently disbelieved all the stories in the bible that represented anything at all supernatural or superstitious And lastly, he believed that much of what the four Evangelists wrote were personal revisions, and/or misinterpretations.
So he took scissors and paste to various copies of the bible, literally cutting out and eliminating any entry that represented supernatural beings and events, religious dogma or doctrine, or the bastardizations of Jesus' teachings by the Evangelists who tried to convert the world to Christianity, and cobbled together his own text that only included specifically the life events of Jesus, and the teachings of Jesus.
I'm an atheist, and even I think that that text is full of great stuff. Look it up on the interwebs.
unfortunately, /. doesn't accept TSIA.
-Styopa
Thinking reduces your reliance on unproven, untested, unverified, based purely on argument-from-authority, internally and externally contradictory belief systems.
Really?
Who'd have thought... ...oh, wait...
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
You must therefore understand everything about every currently accepted theory
You don't need to understand an accepted theory, but you can if you want.
You're free to ask questions, you're free to retry experiments just to prove that a given model work, and so one.
We all have beliefs; some are just a little (or a lot) less plausible than others.
No there's a huge difference in believe in science (having confidence in scientist) and believe in religion (faith).
With science, if you have doubts, you can go ask question around, you can do experiments to test models in given conditions, you can try to replicate other people's result to test if everything is working according to the model, etc.
You choose to trust scientist and believe accepted theories, because it's convenient from a time and resource point of view. But it's something you choose. And anyway, in school during physics and chemistry lessons, there are a lot of experiments done for demonstration or for training, so there's a lot of theory that an individual has personally tested by the time he/she finishes studying.
On the other hand, religion is about faith, about believing what is written in some book *NO MATTER WHAT*.
You cannot question religion, you cannot try to prove or disprove anything if you're motivated, you cannot try to replicate a miracle, you cannot run an experiment on an angel, etc.
We all have beliefs, the question is not how much some are less plausible than others, but which we are forced to believe no matter what, and which we could verify if we could managed to get enough time and resources.
*That's* the difference between religion and science.
And one requires blind trust into the pack's leader.
The other requires a little bit of thinking.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
...falls to those who assert that claims are true and factual, not those who don't believe them.
If you assert that the supernatural events and beings and stories proclaimed as true in the bible and by its followers are real and true, *you* need to provide evidence in order to have other people accept them as true; not the other way around.
This is going to be a very long thread; I hope slashdot counters uses long long int type.
One of the linked-to articles sums up issues with the study very well:
"[Consider] philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas, David Hume, Immanuel Kant and George Berkeley. The idea that the beliefs of those individuals would have vanished had they been more analytical is, if nothing else, amusing. Gervais and Norenzayan’s findings should help to combat religion as an indolent obstacle to better explanations of the natural world. But it can’t really engage with the rich tradition of religious thought."
Lets all get together in an insulated community of people who think like us, where those who disagree are a tiny, tiny minority. Let's trumpet the correctness of our ideas, and insult other people, knowing that our own ideas will be affirmed by everyone here and that no one truly studied enough in the opposite viewpoint will be likely enough to be here to point out that we're not completely correct! Then we'll feel good about how smart/right we are, and how others are idiots.
Sounds like a church to me.
Also sounds like this thread.
It is really easy to convince yourself of self-serving concepts like "I'm not hurting anyone" or something similar to begin the downward spiral towards depravity. Given this, it is equally easy to engage in mental masturbation which leads to self-centred attitudes. Delusions of grander soon follow ultimately leading to an increase in anti-social behaviour and a lack of value placed on other human beings.
Humans are social animals and if you start spending too much time alone "thinking" instead of living then you are going to hurt yourself psychologically. Don't cut yourself off and start thinking that you have things figure out because that is a danger sign that you are most lost than ever.
Many of the "greats" that some of you look up to are anti-social pricks because they have replace god with their ego.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
In other news, the sky is blue
Comment removed based on user account deletion
who deems the findings as analytical. It really depends on where one's foundation of philosophy and analytics are rooted in. If one bases there hypothesis that man is innately good, then one will be left is innumerable scenarios that travel down a circular path that will indefinitely spiral within itself; there is no way to test all possible scenarios if they are infinite. But if one thinks that man is innately evil, then one will be looking for reasons or causes for this evil as well as how to temper it or remove it. The foundation will greatly determine one's outcome and one's path of analysis. As much as we would like to say that open-minded people are unbiased it is not true; open-minded people are only open to idea that they agree with or think they can agree with. But if one search for Truth, they will find it.
"There is no Truth", is a statement I hear a lot from learned and analytical persons...is that True?" In their best efforts to deflect Truth as subjective and relative they have proven the very opposite: (just because one don't believe something or decide that is not true, doesn't make it true. What is true is that the person doesn't believe in it, but the anyalysis and validity of their findings are false and suspect, being born from illogical and erroneous thought.) They have just spoke a paradox, in their efforts to speak a "truth", they spoke a lie, thus enforcing the dreaded dichotomy of Truth/Lie. If one speaks a false statement, then there must be an opposing statement that is True. Truth is real and Lies are fake, imaginary, and pretend. If a philosophy is based upon "there is no truth", then that philosophy has begun on a erroneous note and nothing derived or concluded from the analysis will be True. Starting with a correct foundation makes all the difference in finally analysis of a subject or topic. And from this understanding we must judge every thought by this standard, is it Truth, or is it a lie.
I would simply suggest someone like C.S. Lewis; a college professor, an atheist, and an analytical thinker. His reasoning brought him to Jesus in his 30's after decades of atheism and science. If you read "Mere Christianity" or any of his apologetics I doubt you can consider him an emotional nincompoop who just believed something because he heard it in a church sermon or his parents told him. Statements like that are oversimplified and biting, they are meant to discredit someone's analysis by predicating it was born in child-like ignorance or narrow-minded naivety. Analytical thinking brought Lewis to Religion, more specific, brought him to Jesus and the Cross. It should have solidified him in his previous analysis of atheism but he found Truth far too compelling and logical. He not only embraced it but became a defender of it via Reasoning and Logic. I am sure he would have somewhat to say to the University of British Columbia about their findings. Another great C.S. Lewis book is "The Abolition of Man", if you doubt his skill of analytical thought.
I myself have been an analytical thinker and after years of wrestling with science and religion I can say that it is more logical, more rational that there is a God and that the Bible is His Word than any psychology, philosophy, science, or ideal I have read, studied, and mediated upon. I feel I have left no stone unturned, no "myth" untested, and I find no fault in Christianity or faith in God...I bet my life on it. Can you say the same for other analytical alternatives?
Blasphemy, it's the word of God!
Oh wait were arguing if god exitts... Nevermind!
For the same reason (the laws of human nature), majority rule cannot logically validate coericon (theft, fraud, violence). Yet the vast majority of people want to believe it, like a fantasy. They want to believe it because they are taught from a very young age that majority equates to morality.
This could not be further from the truth. In fact, majority rule is orders of magnitude more dangerous than religion, because majority rule is the key engine (the "god") behind today's governments (the "religion"). 500 yeras ago, religion was a key engine of government. Today religion is merely lip service in politics, and oppression is justified purely by majority rule, not religion.
Sure, it's on the table, but beleiving in it is insane. Why pretend you know what causes everything to exist when the reality is we just don't know? I'm an atheist because there is no reason to believe in any religion.
If you don't know what causes everything to exist, then why would you arrogantly rule out the possibility of a god? To claim you are atheist makes you no less ignorant than the Christians you wish to bash.
That is why I call myself 'agnostic'.
So its not just that religion doesn't work if you think about it. Religion doesn't work if you think about anything.
water decrease thirst
And this just in... light decrease darkness
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.
Or:
Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.
Reason and science are usually only tolerated as long as they do not threaten to undermine religious beliefs. The moment they do, then you see the irrational roots of religion shine through. The Catholic church, for example, is ok with evolution, until you point out that there was never a time where there was only two human beings. There are a few Eastern religions which I understand do not take this stance(Buddhism, if I am not mistaken), but it is the prevalent view in Western and Middle Eastern religions.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
Then there's Bahá’u’lláh, founder of the Bahai faith, who declared that "True science is never in conflict with true religion." That kept a lot of nonsense out of the Bahai faith.
Apparently you haven't even read that part of the Bible. The Jews were ENSLAVED by a CRUEL and REPRESSIVE regime. God sent several warnings in the form of plagues, but they were disregarded. What else was there to do but bring in the superior air power and pummel the bastards? Is it murderous to free a whole race from cruel slavery?
God will always give people the chance to repent, if they refuse, then all hell breaks loose.
Philosophy of religion, the concept of it alone, is the most significant terrorist act ever afflicted upon humanity. You believe in and maintain faith for a deity? You're an idiot. Your very existence and beliefs actively contribute to the unending conflicts, bloodshed and hatred that are spawned of your selfish theisms. That is all I've come to say.
Well, duh.
My Pastafarian deity (pesto be upon him) is much tastier than those little Jesus-flesh communion crackers. -and his balls are way bigger. RAmen.
The Catholic religion in particular is strangely perceived it seems in the United States.
I myself cannot recognize my own religiosity in how it is presented by the most vocal voices there.
A word to the unwise: Scripture is a map, not a destination.
I actually accepted Christ in part because of the predictive value of the Bible. Most of what passes for scientific criticism of Christianity these days ignores the prediction part of the scientific method, and relies instead on assumption. People seem to forget that Christians who proposed what we now call the Big Bang Theory were at first derided for their "God did it theory" -- much of the argument about origins of the universe and life on Earth that go on now are so far on the Christian end of the spectrum that it is absurd to use that scientific data to disprove anything religious; one can imagine the Slashdot at the turn of the last century would have had 100s of commenters pointing out how science had disproven the idea of the universe having an origin at all!
I would also remind people that people have tried to disprove Christian predictions and failed. Take Jesus' statements that the Temple, which had just been finished being constructed, would be torn down and not rebuilt until his return. This is exactly what happened when the Romans sacked Jerusalem, though it would have seemed incredible to the residents at the time. Diocletian tried to rebuild the Temple in order to establish that Jesus would not return in order to reconvert the empire to the more intellectual Greek pantheon of his upbringing, only to have it destroyed in what Christian sources called a fireball from heaven and earthquake, and what Roman and Jewish historians described as an extremely isolated earthquake which only destroyed the Temple and not any other part of Jerusalem. An unlikely series of events at a minimum.
Likewise, the apostles describe Asia (Turkey/Iran) as closed up until the end times, and that the jews in Israel would be among the last to convert. So let me get this straight: a cultish offspring of an imperial backwater will not only conquer the world, but do so without violence and amidst unspeakable oppression, AFTER their leader dies, but without significantly affecting the local populace? Quite a magic trick, and one I am sure people would find mythological if we did not live in a world where it had actually happened exactly as predicted.
One could go on and on about how the Bible places itself on the line with falsifiable predictions, but simply let it suffice that the best advice is that which Moses gave on identifying successor leaders and prophets: "When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him" Sounds pretty scientific to me. Can you say the same of your objections?
If theologian were so good at analytic thinking, why so many of them incuding the most famous, use fallacies like circular reasonning (stating the bible or part of their religion as a premise, and oh funny, finding out their religion is valid, basically the bible is true because the bible is true) , and many other ? Basically Thomas Aquina which is supposed to be the big guy, essentially said it is OK to arrive to knowledge by faith rather than logic.
Firstly it should up to you to prove that the bible is NOT corrupt and establish your case, it should not be up to us to establish the negative
If you're against Christian teaching and you think you're an analytic thinker, I challenge you find out what's wrong about the content of the bible
Pretty much everything has its opposite said a few chapter afterward. Furthermore the old testament is a bunch of bloody storsy which are deeply amoral. Father having sex with daughters. Brother and sister. Baby bashing head on rock. EVen the new testmament is full of hole, see skeptic annoted bible. And let us not start with the apocalypse : Jesus/god/angels whatever decide it is time to make the end of time, destroy basically the population , plant, and animals , and then the supposed "beast" rise up to fight god or whatnot. I am sorry but read as it is (and not as a bad shroom dream) , it is absically god the bad guy killing everybody , and an adversary attempting to resist the destruction. Helllo ? You find nothing wrong with that ?
and find an convincing argument why people who believe in Christ are doing it in vein.
People believe a lot of shit. People believing in odin, in Zeus, and in Quezacoatl. It is not up to us to provide evidence of people being misguided, it is up to you to provide evidence that people belief are NOT in vain. And good luck with that.
If you want to show that the bible is made up, or its text is corrupt,
firstly nobody pretend the bible is FULLY made up, actually very small aprt of it are probably true. Anybody wanting to tell a story knows it is best to sprinkle truth in it. But there are many part whicha re inconsistent with archeology. You know like the city of nazareth being even populated at that period of time or similar in the same vein. But AGAIN, it is not up to us to DISPROVE your made up little story, it is up to YOU to demonstrate the veracity of the bible. Good luck with that too.
I'm going to put you through scientific method process and axiomatic logic reasoning to establish your case
If youw ere doing so you would admit the burden of proof is on the one giving extraordinary quality to the bible, like veracity or whatnot.
That's funny, it does exactly the opposite for me.
I guess it depends what you're analyzing... This is so vague and biased isn't it?
"Science is composed of errors, but erros that it is right to make, for the lead step by step to the truth."
Exactly! Every soldier knows that you shoot the babies and kids first. If any pussy gets all "That's a war crime! You're a monster!" on you, just remind them that their parents *were* given a chance to surrender, after all. That's makes the kids guilty by association.
Killing kids. It's God's plan.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
The scripture could be false AND there could be a hell, you know the greek were actually right with Hades.
The problem is that most people think about religion as a binary thing because they consider MOSTLY only the majority religion of their own culture, and mostly ignore all others, including past religion not practiced anymore. CHristianity is not the only one with a hell, and there is NO evidence whatsoever that christianity is more right than any other religion.
So basically it could very well be that the grek were correct, or the roman, or the chinese, or the buddhist, or the aztec, the mayan, the viking, etc.... It is not a "there is a god , there is no god" binary BS, it is "there is no god, or it could be any of the 1000 religions on earth, with 1000 concept of afterlife , heaven, valhalla, nirvana etc...".
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
You also need to keep in mind that God KNEW ahead of time that Pharaoh would not let them go until the final plague.
"If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out. If thy hand offend thee, cut it off. If thy brain offend thee, turn Catholic."
The definition of faith straight out of the Bible (Hebrews 11:1, emphasis mine):
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Many people who claim to believe the Bible also say "Well, you've just got to have faith." What they are describing is blind faith, which goes against the very teaching of the Bible. According to the very book they claim to believe, faith defined as something based on tangible evidence. However, much of what they believe has absolutely no tangible evidence.
Having considered the matter carefully, I've come to the conclusion that a person who has dedicated a large portion of their lives to the study of climate effects knows more about the subject than I do.
I'd add a "according to scientific principals" in there somewhere, otherwise it can be easily twisted around:
"Having considered the matter carefully, I've come to the conclusion that a person who has dedicated a large portion of their lives to the study of the word of God knows more about the subject than I do."
I think it's best to remain agnostic, but atheistic in practice.
Why?
If there is a God, he/she/it has been good at hiding the evidence. The thing is, absense of evidence isn't evidence of absense. Since it can't be proven to exist or not exist, may as well be agnostic about it. Also a lot of things attributed to God seem to counter each other or are dubious in character at best. As such, it would point to a nature of character that is best described as chaotic. When we see such traits expressed in people and practiced on the internet, we call those people trolls. If there is any evidence of god, it would be by definition the ultimate troll.
Although there are times where I actually can see the humor in trolling, I don't see it as beneficial or productive to worship trolls. And to trust in a troll with omnipotence seems foolish at best, as trolls do whatever the heck they want for lulz. Thus with no real or predictable way to bring about favor or wrath, following a path that seems reasonable for myself is the best way to go. In other words, I ignore it and go about my business as if it weren't there. Thus atheism.
But don't interpret this as an attack on religion. If other people want to waste their time, that's fine by me. The stories and cultural influence is also amusing at times. I only find it as a problem and get annoyed when they butt into my business. Thus the best religious practice is: "Do what you want, but leave me the f' alone. Thanks!"
Without putting forth the effort and humility to understand God's wisdom it might seem foolish.
1 Corinthians 1:19-20
Contemporary English Version (CEV)
19 As God says in the Scriptures,
“I will destroy the wisdom
of all who claim
to be wise.
I will confuse those
who think they know
so much.”
20 What happened to those wise people? What happened to those experts in the Scriptures? What happened to the ones who think they have all the answers? Didn’t God show that the wisdom of this world is foolish?
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/827/pzquote.jpg/
http://yfrog.com/4rkingsizefraudtebowj
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/62/idiocyakbar.jpg/
http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/9931/newidiocyjesus.jpg
God will always give people the chance to repent, if they refuse, then all hell breaks loose.
And this differs from the bargain offered by a mugger at an ATM, how?
I can't speak for any other church or church-like organization, but my church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (sometime called the mormon church), strongly encourages learning and analysis. Over all my years as a member, my deep-thought and study has only fortified my faith. Additionally, I have learned for myself that this is the one true church of God on earth. That is a key point. We teach that everyone can find for themselves personally, from revelation given by God, that this is the true church. We absolutely do not abide by the principle of blind-obedience, but we are encouraged to find out for ourselves if some principle or precept is from God (intelligent obedience). I am here to testify that we do have a living God that loves each of us. Aside from the many personal witnesses given to me from God, through the Holy Ghost, I have also been privileged to witness miracles of the caliber expressed in God's holy writ. There is far more sound reason and logic in the true principles given by God, which I know and personally testify of, than the worldly and sectarian views that are so strongly peddled by those who think that they know more than our all-knowing Creator. Additionally, in reply to some of the denunciations expressed toward christian philosophy in comments posted here, I must say, we have a far more loving understanding of God. We do not believe that those who never had an opportunity to learn the truth are implicitly condemned to some endless pit of fire and brimstone. We believe that God, to be entirely just, will give everyone an equal opportunity. We also believe that the way has been provided that all those who transgress the laws of God and truly repent are made clean and are partakers of the fullest of His blessings. The Atonement brings great hope to all who will heed its incessant call to be perfected by it. Now, I can't adequately portray all the truth I have come to know as truth from God here in these comments, but I do invite any who desire to gain this same knowledge from God to seek it out by study (via authoritative sources like http://www.mormon.org/) and honest prayer. If you do so with sincerity and real intent to follow whatever answer you are given from God, I know and promise you will find the same answer I have found from Him.
http://faazshift.blogspot.com/
It is Critical Thinking, not Analytical Thinking which should decrease religious belief.
I think the english word 'God' is too linguistically simple to throw about in open conversation without first actually defining what it means to you.
One of the rules in the earliest social algorithm (complete with infinite loop sabbath statement) is all about 'no idols or images'.
Wiki - "Behaviour considered idolatrous or potentially idolatrous may include the creation of any type of image of the deity, or of other figures of religious significance such as prophets, saints, and clergy, the creation of images of any person or animal at all, and the use of religious symbols, or secular ones."
By this logic, any idolizing of Jesus is as God is inherently flawed. And the Sistine Chapel is a beautiful sham. And the Muslims are right to not worship images of Mohammad. And worshiping the image of the cross is wrong. There's only one image to be worshipped as God and thats the one you see when you open your eyes in the morning as well as the one you see when you close them at night. Nothing more, nothing less. Worship the living existence, the being that existed before being came into being.
Modern usage of the word God has a tendency to anthropomorphize God, which is the root of the whole problem and the need for this discussion.
I agree that religion is defined by faith, in a certain specific sense: taking something as epistemically obligatory, i.e. that you ought to think it, without any good reasons to back that. (It's fine to hold something to be epistemically permissible without reason, so long as there are no reasons to the contrary; if I can show no reason why you shouldn't believe something, it would be fideistic of me to say you shouldn't, though not simply to say that I don't have to too).
Almost any kind of fallacious appeal fleshes out to faith in this sense, including appeals to authority, popularity, and tradition: presenting an opinion as thought it is epistemically obliged by something, but that something is empty. So GPP was also on about "collective belief": if you believe something because it's part of your group identity to believe it, that's faith, and therefore religion.
Any kind of (obliged) belief in the supernatural is also necessarily based on faith and therefore religious, as by definition the supernatural is beyond observation and evidence and so no reasons can possibly be given to oblige belief in it. (Note that I am not saying all "obliging" of belief is religious: if you have evidence and reason to back your assertion, it is perfectly rational to make it).
There are many things commonly characteristic of "religion" - God, a supernatural authority; the supernatural in general; authority in general - but what they all have in common is unjustified assertions.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
They've primed volunteers to perform analytical thinking, and then followed up with questions about their religious beliefs. I bet these results could be generalized. You could've substitute the topic of religious belief questions with anything else and I would've expected the same response (e.g. Do you believe in life on other planets?). If you're primed to think analytically, and then asked whether you believe in something without the chance to analyze it, why would you expect any other response than a rejection of blind belief (on average)?
So if you ask a theist some questions that require analytical thinking, and then ask them to renounce their religion, they'll do it? Interesting. Someone has to try that in an interview with the Pope.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I'd be curious to know (of course I'll go look it up, but I want to make a point first) which religions were used in this study. To me the headline suggests that some religions are less compatible with rational thinking. But I don't think the statement generalizes well. Personally, the religion I follow is such that rational thinking (i.e. inspection of belief, hypothesis driven study and observation, cross correlation of tenets, compatibility of belief with observable world, etc) has INCREASED by faith and belief.
/.) that discussed the prevalence of magical thinking, both throughout religions as well as nonreligious communities. Perhaps the study should have announced that "analytic thinking decreases magical thinking?"
It seems that not too long ago there was a post (I believe on
The Bible does not address the history between Gen. 1:1 when the "Big Bang" happened and God started everything in motion, and the time when the earth was restored to a second habitable state as recorded in much of the rest of Gen. 1. That history is occasionally alluded to though. Isaiah records that Satan once ruled the earth and led a rebellion against God. The world he ruled is described as civilized and not stone age. He was already in a rebellious state in the first chapters of Genesis, so this would push this back into this large unrecorded time frame.
2 Pet 3 identifies a time when the earth was wiped out by water - the greek "kosmos" or social system. This doesn't refer to Noah's flood as the social system then in place survived. So it must refer to this earlier destruction due to Lucifer's rebellion.
Finally, in Jer. 4, he has a vision of the earth in this destroyed state. It is described using the same phrase "tohu va bohu" as used in Gen. 1. It likewise doesn't match up with Noah's flood.
The conclusions I draw from these is that there is a time gap that is simply unrecorded between the original creation of earth and the time man is re-established on it. The Bible is largely silent about this interval other than acknowledging in the few verses above and some in Psalms if you dig, that it did exist. All dinosaurs existed during this time period - and the early part of this time period as well.
Your pastor was mistaken. That it led you away from God is unfortunate. I hope you will get a good study Bible and do some research on these scriptures I've mentioned. There isn't any conflict between the Bible and science. The only apparent conflicts we have are where we don't understand or don't study what the Bible really says. Unfortunately, there will be many who stand before God at the white throne judgment claiming that the Bible said this or the Bible said that and since it didn't line up with science, I rejected it. Many pastors will be uncomfortable on that day - or at least I hope they will be - for defending their misunderstood faith and causing many to go to hell because of it. God didn't create a tricky geologic past as a test or a trap. He just didn't bother having the scribes write down several billion years of history to no purpose. The Bible is designed to describe God to man and to provide a map for how to reconcile yourself to God. It does have a lot of history in it, but the main purpose is to show God and His requirements for man.
Don't get bogged down by one subject and miss out on the important precepts it has.
Repeat the study, reproduce the results many times in many different populations and cultures. I am inclined to call these findings are bullshit.
.... your argument never even existed by definition. ..., etc. etc.
Just fx. Liebniz and Newton were obsessively religious, and both had minds that were among the most analytical in human history. Scores of systematic theologians (whose very occupation is an exercise in analytical thinking) are all the more zealous for it. Cosmologists often have bizarre religious beliefs, the more they look at the stars, the stronger their conviction in their peculiar faiths. Count them in your population, and you'd only find them brazened in their faith by analytical thinking.
It's just a fodder cannon designed to mark an unfounded distinction the general atheist populace can appeal to in order to mock the religious. Religious? Well, science proved to us the other day that you're not analytical so
But since you disagree with me, I'm sure you'll claim I'm not analytical and probably religious. Or call me a troll. *shrugs*
to just read "Thinking Can Decrease Religious Belief"
Who would have thought that reason could beat dogma? Suffices to look back to the times of the Renaissance.
Aren't 'brilliant' mathematicians and scientists supposed to be analytical thinkers? Two examples are Newton and Maxwell. Yet both men were also very religious. Of course, they were also rather...eccentric, so I don't know if their religious convictions were all that standard.
I sometimes wonder if adopting an extreme conviction about some of the things that trouble us in our human condition, and locking it away as a solved problem, frees up the mind to focus more narrowly on something else, like recondite mathematical and physical science problems.
In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice they're different. (Yogi Berra & A. Einstein)
I agree with the title of this article. I have been raised Catholic and went through confirmation and everything. (St. Martin of Tours was my patron saint. Holler!) I am, however, attending Berkeley now, Due to the fact that I have been taught to be a more analytic, critical thinker (Berkeley's motto: Challenge the status quo) I have had a falling out with my Catholic faith. This has been because I have discovered numerous fallacies with organized religion. So due to the fact that I've learned to be a critical thinker I have lost my religious beliefs.
Lewis Black is all over this:
The Devil's Handiwork
I bought this house and you know I'm boss
Ain't no h'aint gonna run me off
There is a good chance the sun might rise tomorrow!
I'll go out on a limb and say that the obverse is also true- a decrease in analytic thinking increases religious thinking.
OK, so it's an unusually thick and short limb.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
Don't get bogged down by one subject and miss out on the important precepts it has.
still waiting for even one of those "important precepts"...
There are way too many responses for me to address individually, but since this is the highest modded post, I'll respond to this, hoping the others will find it.
I'm actually not asking you to believe in the Bible, and I have absolutely no interest in defending it. The whole point of the challenge is this: when you are presented a statement, you are making a decision to admit or reject the statement. The Bible is a collection of statements that you have to decide upon. However, when you make your decision, there is no way you have perfect knowledge about the truthfulness or falseness of the statements in the Bible. If you do, we would not be calling on who has the burden of proof here. Therefore, whatever decision you end up making is logically unsound. This is true for both believers and non-believers, and we are both equal.
This is the case for the bible, the stuff you read on the news, the stuff you read in science textbooks, and the stuff you read published as journal or conference papers. Mathematical papers are easier to ensure soundness in that regard since the problem definition is a closed logical system for which you have perfect knowledge. None of the other disciplines have that luxury. Whenever you read a paper in a prestigious journal, you're putting great faith into the authors, the peer reviewers, the editor, and the publisher. Unless you are an expert, it is not possible for you to find error. Even those who can spot errors do it assuming that the axioms introduced by the author are not deliberately false.
In conclusion, those people who call upon me for the burden of proof don't actually understand what a proof is, and have no reason to believe they're more intellectual than religious people.
I once had a signature.
I find it funny that arguments against religion are always taken to mean an argument against Christian religion. As if Christians have a monopoly.
Rare are the attacks against say, the Hindu gods, or say... antisemitic arguments.
Antisemites or Hindu heretics please respond here.
This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
Prove God doesn't exist then...
Do what the poster before me stated too IF you like (except I disagree with anything written by men being the actual "word of God", because men rewrite histories for example & IF You *think* the history you read is the real truth & real history? You're a fool...).
* "There are no atheists in foxholes" & I'd like to see anyone explain the presence of this Universe then with all of its rules and interacting parts - see, to myself @ least? Whatever set it "into motion" working as it does, qualifies as "GOD" to me... because I surely am not capable of such a work & I'd personally guarantee that nobody on this planet is either.
APK
P.S.=> I went thru this with my nephew, he says "There is no God" & I challenged him to prove that. He couldn't. I challenged him to also establish HOW this 'construct' (Universe) we live in came to be & he said "Oh, it's always just been there" & I was like "That's a 'cop-out' & YOU KNOW IT!"... apk
believers in religion are incapable of analytic thought?
The more scientifically minded won't ever accept such ideas because the foundation of science is the axiom that natural effects have natural causes. While such an approach may have value in explaining the natural world, it completely fails when dealing with things which cannot be experimentally verified. Many a scientist (Dawkins, for example...) have wandered off into theological territory and stumbled badly.
The problem with scientific types is that they can understand only the natural world which can be measured. If they can't put a number on it, if it can't be measured, they can't understand it and don't know it. The existence of a supernatural reality is completely beyond their grasp.
Believers are people who can understand both natural and supernatural realities. While there are questions yet unanswered, at least a believer has the philosophical framework by which they can understand their whole existence as a human being. Unbelievers OTOH, are limited by to understanding only the material, natural world. You can't reason with such an individual about beliefs because they lack even a supernatural context to which reason can be applied.
As a Christian, I understand that science is a good tool for understanding the natural world. However, I believe that resigning one's notion of reality to only that which can be experimentally verified is naive and ignorant - while it may be good approach to scientific problems, it fails at characterizing reality. Imagine, for a moment, a physicist asking a mathematician to prove that infinity existed - through experiment. If you can imagine such a thing, you can appreciate how a Christian feels when asked to "prove that God exists". The proof has existed for centuries, but some people have misunderstood the question of God's existence so badly they can't see it.
What's up with America!? Even on a nerd forum like this one you have tons of religion God Jesus Mohammed worshiper, why is that? If you go to Western Europe (Germany Sweden Switzerland etc.. no Sicily and stuff) and you only say once that being religious is a good thing, people will laugh at you, they won't take you seriously anymore.
You got the best universities and brightest people in the world, wake the fuck up! :-)
So does analytic thinking decrease the religious belief many people have in science, as well.
Also, "religion" cannot be generalized; usually in the Western context, "religion" refers to Christianity, as Westerners tend to generalize all religions as being the same as Christianity.
I'm a Muslim, and the more I ask questions and analyze my beliefs, the stronger in faith I get. (And for all those who have objections, why don't you learn about Islam from proper Islamic sources like Islamic scholars, and not Fox News, etc.?)
What a silly conclusion, analyzing empirical data causes people to double conclusions they had drawn while applying faith. It's called faith for a reason. Every human brain uses a boatload of intuition along with piles of incomplete and often contradictory sensory data to make decisions everyday. Only the ignorant or self deceived don't believe they are guided by some kind of "religion". Blind faith in the statements of "leading scientists" is as much a religion as having faithful belief in Budda or Jesus.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
A lot of people confuse their faith with rational belief.
I wonder how much money was spent to make this obvious determination. Rational thought squelches credulity. Anyone who has had any critical thinking course could have told you that.
I completely agree but for a couple of things. First, there is no need to capitalize atheism; it is a lack of belief, not a proper name. Second, I fail to see a spiritual connection to humility and harmony; these are purely human and natural traits, however desirable. Other than that, I very much appreciate your post as it represents the view of many atheists, myself included, that we do not wish to "convert" anyone to atheism, only to be free of the attempts of others to convert us away from it by force of law.
http://electromods.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/truth-about-religion_5472.html
Replace "plumber" with "used car salesman" and the problem with trusting authority becomes clear. If the used car salesman wants to keep his job, he is going to have to exaggerate the value of his goods. If a climate scientist wants to keep their grant funding, then...
In other words, intelligence cures us of religion
Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
Oh, have no fear, I am totally not an Atheist because of only dinosaurs. I mean, there are a few thousand religions to choose from, and christianity is really kinda lame, and at the same time quite obscene. Apparently, I would have to kill my gay friends, and I must confess I did have sex before marriage, and I am using condoms too. I am also _not_ a misogynist, and I think Paul would really hate on me for that. Lastly, your god seems to be a bit of a douche-bag, killing children and civilians, just because they are from Egypt, and commanding his most devout follower to kill his own son (but hey, that was just a trick, haha! No harm done! Nobody was scarred for life there!). If I was forced to choose between the around three thousand gods listed on Wikipedia, I'd much rather go with Thor, at least he's a properly awesome imaginary friend, and there's beer and many fighting. Or Banjo the clown, I hear you get a free espresso machine.
... could a purely analytical thinker possibly belief in, besides him or her self? What if that's not the real God? Analytical thinking is helpful for some truth and knowledge, but not all. Those who think it's all sufficient have made their own religion out of it.
Religious wars are basically 2 different people fighting over who's imaginary friend is better... hahah
A big problem I have with religion in general, is that religious people seem to think they are supposed to indoctrinate their children with the same beliefs, from a very early age. So the kids get brainwashed by their parents, before their brains have fully developed and before they even have any analytical or higher reasoning capability.
This is a handicap that most of them never recover from; they live out their entire lives believing superstitious nonsense because their parents drilled it into them repeatedly when they were kids. By the time they were capable of thinking critically about religion, it was a near-permanent part of their belief system.
'Religion' is a deeply personal belief and ultimately unprovable hypothesis.
Any one specific religion within the 'set of Religions' - especially one that tom-toms itself as the only element in the set (singleton) is a mathematically provable false belief, using elementary NOT, OR and AND logic operations. Abrahamic religions especially, because they put so much emphasis on changing what others' personal beliefs should be (normative ideology). Eastern religions are older, and gone through more test cycles, and are somewhat more diverse and accepting in their beliefs while having plenty of their own issues.
There's a quote from Einstein in here somewhere that captures it best:
"I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."
Build a computer on faith alone. You'll notice you're reading this on one made entirely by science.
Need Mercedes parts ?
All Analytic thinking does for me is help my distrust of Politicians grow larger anytime I hear one of them speak! The more I wander round this old Earth the more I hope intelligent life exists some where out there in the universe because there is precious little of it down here on Earth! It may also be worth remembering that some of the most abhorrent acts of cruelty and depravity have been perpetuated by people who did not believe in a God or religion. Prime candidates for this are Stalin (Brutal Paranoid crackpot)who killed 20 million of his own people to build the Russian empire during world war 2,Adolph Hitler (Genocidal mad man/racist-used Darwin as an excuse to slaughter millions of Jews along with his brutal cold cohort Reinhardt Heydrich who had no belief in anything but cold hard logic that the Jews must die! Then there is mass murderer Pol Pot lord of the killing fields in Cambodia from 1975-1979, killer of millions with hammers and other handy implements . A Maoist fruit loop who forced people to the country side and conducted a 4 year brutal failed experiment! No God here just megalomania dressed up in political nonsense and brutality! All Analytical in their beliefs that what they were doing was right and logical and necessary!
... well you know what they still do in the woods.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating