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.
I guess it works on global warmers then.
See you back in 20 years :-)
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?
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.
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.
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.
But God and Religion are two different things. God could be interpreted many different ways, religion is a specific belief in ideas, most of which are obsolete non-sense, based on our understanding today.
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
"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.
I think we should all go watch the south park episode about Mormons:
Gary: [to Stan] Look, maybe us Mormons do believe in crazy stories that make absolutely no sense, and maybe Joseph Smith did make it all up, but I have a great life. and a great family, and I have the Book of Mormon to thank for that.
My personal epiphany was the observation that religion and place of birth are highly correlated.
Yeah, the social nature of religion is glaringly obvious.
For some reason the whole world hasn't abandoned all the false religions for the one true religion, whichever one that is.
It takes incredible arrogance - or incredible lack of thought - to believe that you just happened to be born where the right gods were worshipped the right way.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
It's quite possible for atheists to hate the religion, even if they don't hate the God. The religion is very much a real thing, with an army of believers to give it power. I used to be indifferent to religion myself, until I read of how Christians were opposing vaccination against HPV* on the grounds that it could encourage people to sin. The more I learned, the more the hate grew. But hate is not a bad thing, it can be a powerful force for reform and a drive to fight that which should be fought. *Still in the early trial stage back then
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.
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:
These people who think they're wise and learned are actually pretty ignorant and close-minded. Even worse, they want others to be just like them, or to respect their position so they can keep enjoying the prestige. When Jesus came to challenge the Pharisees (who are the teachers and law-keepers among the Jews) about their inconsistent moral standard, the Pharisees hung Jesus on the cross through the hands of Pontius Pilate.
Never let a blind person lead another blind, lest both of them fall into a pit.
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 and find an convincing argument why people who believe in Christ are doing it in vein. If you want to show that the bible is made up, or its text is corrupt, I'm going to put you through scientific method process and axiomatic logic reasoning to establish your case.
I once had a signature.
71 And then the Romans laid hands on Jesus to lead him away. 72 But Peter said unto them, "This is not the Jew you are looking for." 73 And then the centurion said unto them, "This is not the Jew we are looking for."
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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.
This. I've always thought religion was a wonderful thing until you get people involved with it. There are plenty of small churches who do wonderful things for both their parishioners and the community, but you never hear about those churches. You only hear of the giant mega churches constantly asking for money and influencing politics for their own gain by spewing hatred for all those who don't follow in their footsteps. Those are the stains that have plagued religions since their inception.
I'm currently very anti organized religion, but feel I have to get past what I see on the news and realize the vast majority of churches are good, just not attention whores.
I still believe in a God though. A neat saying I've latched onto is, "religions are looking at the same thing through different windows." I believe the stories in the bible are just that, stories to make a point.
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 and find an convincing argument why people who believe in Christ are doing it in vein. If you want to show that the bible is made up, or its text is corrupt, I'm going to put you through scientific method process and axiomatic logic reasoning to establish your case.
Maybe you'll show us what you expect by working through examples with some of the religions that *you* reject.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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
"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"
I challenge you find out what's wrong about the content of the bible and find an convincing argument why people who believe in Christ are doing it in vein. If you want to show that the bible is made up, or its text is corrupt, I'm going to put you through scientific method process and axiomatic logic reasoning to establish your case.
Have you read The God Delusion?. It does a pretty good job of explaining why religion, in general, doesn't make any sense, and it does so via a clear logical thought process. When I read Dawkins' book, I suddenly understood this quote from 1984:
The best books... are those that tell you what you know already
If you want to show that the bible is made up, or its text is corrupt, I'm going to put you through scientific method process and axiomatic logic reasoning to establish your case.
Couldnt the same requirements be placed on you to show it isn't made up/corrupt?
I am that much more enlightened and proportionally disillusioned
Shouldn't the burden of proof be on you to use the Scientific Method to support your theory that the accounts of the Bible are true?
If you want to show that the bible is made up, or its text is corrupt, I'm going to put you through scientific method process and axiomatic logic reasoning to establish your case.
The burden of proof is on you. Without any evidence that your book is not just another book of ancient mythology, why should we give it any more creedence than the works of Homer?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Well, if you have to ask...
I'm an atheist, and am actually a big fan of word of Jesus. The ideas were revolutionary for morality and ethics in the ancient world. Whether or not Jesus was diving, or even really existed, is unimportant in this respect.
But, having said that, I'm afraid you can find all sorts of examples in the Bible that contradict each other, especially between the Old and New Testaments (e.g. stoning gays vs. loving one another). Not to mention the conflicting geneologies of Jesus in the gospels. (And I'm sure other posters will chime in soon with more examples.) Furthermore, biblical scholars worth their salt do not believe in the literal truth of the text, since it has been translated, edited, and redacted many times over. Much has been lost, forgotten, rejected (Gnostic gospels anyone?), or just plain ignored.
Finally, my biggest complaint with Christians in general is that more often than not they themselves pick and choose which portions of the Bible are true. Just look at the anti-abortion types in the States who also want to cut back on Social Security or Medicare -- a position that is clearly not "pro-life", nor follows through with Jesus' adminitions to take care of the least fortunate. If you wish to use Jesus' teachings as the basis of your ethics, fine -- but either be consistent, or be prepared to be exposed as a hypocrite.
--- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
The burden of proof is not on me to prove your bible wrong, but for you to go through the "scientific method process and axiomatic logic reasoning to establish your case".
Until you can do that, don't be surprised if the more scientifically minded do not accept your idea.
Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
Oops, "divine" not "diving". Curse you, submit button!
--- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds
-Ralph Waldo Emerson (Used without permission)
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
They came about because they're good survival strategies - read The Selfish Gene.
I don't need to believe there is an invisible sky being to help my neighbour prune her hedges. A belief system is not required for someone to be part of a community. Society works not because everyone has the same beliefs, but because within all the differences between people there are commonalities, and helping others makes a society better.
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
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
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.
You just better hope those with moderator power use all their point before they scroll this far or you will be marked as flamebait.
Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
Why did Jesus slap the fig tree?
Why was Jesus wrong about the end times prophecy? Clearly stated to happen in the apostles life time.
Why is Paul such a raving misogynist?
"Jesus had some good ideas, none of them new." - Al Franken
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
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.
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.
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.
I _have_ looked into it and you're right. A little analytical thinking can shed a lot of light on this so-called conflict. First, Matthew was written for a Jewish audience. Luke was written for a Gentile audience. The Jews would know that the Messiah needed to be a "son of David." (descendant) The genealogy in Matthew, therefore, traces Jesus' "legal" right to sit on the throne. That is, it traces the male line from David. The Gentiles would recognize, though, that if the story of a virgin conception is true, Joseph was NOT the father of Jesus. So, the line is traced through Jesus' mother instead. In addition to that, in Jeremiah 22:30, we learn that "no seed" of Jehoakim (Jechonias in Greek) will sit on the throne of David. So, the virgin birth is actually a clever end-run around this curse. And, if you think about it, John 1:1 provides yet another "Genealogy" of Jesus, in a way. The more I've analyzed scripture, the more I've discovered that, at the very least, it is very carefully and cleverly written.
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.
csb time: I needed to hire a moving company on short notice, several years ago. I called some guy I found in the phone book and he came over and we agreed on a price, etc. he helped me move and things were great. it was lunch time and I offered to buy lunch. it was then that he confided in me, oh so many things. for one, he was in the penn (prison) for some nasty and violent things. 2nd, that he was converted (in the penn) to being 'born-again' and this changed his life. he no longer seeks out gangs or violent related lifestyles. he wants to work for a living and I did appreciate his help. he was a hard worker, that's for sure.
here's the rub: I am a non-believer and he's a devout 'speaking in tongues' kind of believer (yes, he performed that for me when I asked about it). do you think it would be wise to enter into a discussion with this guy about how I thought he was wrong to believe in sky daddies?
right now, he's non-violent. he was given 'alternate programming' and this made him a better person *in society*. I didn't actually worry about him or fear him even given what he confided in me about his past.
but I was NOT (!) about to try to change his mind! imagine if I had put enough doubt into his mind about the mythology that his priest or leader was feeding him? what would that end up as? would he revolt? would he turn violent again? would he seek revenge for being lied to, on purpose?
"sleeping dogs should be left to lie". I decided to just have lunch with the guy, avoid controversy and get back to our task at hand. he tried his best to 'convert me' and I just stayed neutral.
I was NOT going to be the one to undo his re-training, so to speak.
did religion perform a function here? I think so. not the one he believes; but certainly there was a control and safety aspect that I didn't mind having. if thinking that sky daddies would punish him 'later on' for bad behaviour would keep him from killing me in a fit of rage, SURE, FINE, let him believe that.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
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 ]
Giants, people living 200 years, zombies, magic, women-bashing, all the Gospels being written by people who never met Jesus, virgin birth, God being all powerful but unable to do things like forgive humanity without killing himself, God effectively killing himself but disagreeing with suicide, 6000 year old earth if you take it as literal, absolutely content-free rubbish if you do not, God supporting genocide, God killing babies, God telling a guy to burn his son alive but then saying "jk! you got punkd!", Jesus saying basically the same things most homeless guys say, Jesus calling himself God and saying that he is the holy humbleist of them all in the same sentence, the fact that the whole idea of Jesus was ripped off from other cultures like the Egyptians, 4 gospels that often contradict one another, Jesus tacitly supporting slavery by telling slaves to be good and obey their masters, God sending people to hell for their poor choices which he predestined them to make, God letting Satan use Job as a punching bag because of some weird bet, God being the perfect creator but having never created anything perfect, crazy laws like not being able to eat shrimp on pain of death, saying all men need to cut off part of their penis, God being jealous of imaginary gods, if the flood killed everyone except Noah and his family then Noah had to have thousands of children to reach known historical population levels fast enough, Noah built a boat by himself that could carry two of every land-dwelling species at once, the fact that if half these things happened in a fantasy novel you would think they were plot holes. Also, you are the one making the claim; you have the burden of proof! Please, this is pretty much Thinking 101. "For all of you that do not believe in unicorns, why don't you just prove it to me?"
ok. The bible is not internally consistent. It contradicts itself in the exact same chapter sometimes. For example:
Exodus 33:11 the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.
Exodus 33:20 And [the LORD] said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
I once started making a list of Bible contradictions, but this is the one that entertains me the most.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
You, sir, are an utter fool and know not what you talk about.
Science regularily dabbles in theories that are unfalsifiable at the time. Religion, however, is unfalsifiable, etc. etc, in principle. If you don't see the difference between these two approaches, do not despair, a decade or two of education can fix that.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
So its not just that religion doesn't work if you think about it. Religion doesn't work if you think about anything.
The Old Testament is based largely on oral history, like the Iliad and the Odyssey. And like them, it is flawed with omissions, distortions, and additions to make a better story. There is archaeological evidence that provides support for parts of each. The I&O covers only a couple of decades, and claims only to be a history of the Trojan War, its causes and aftermath. The Old Testament claims to be the history of the universe and the ultimate explanation of everything, complete with a dictatorial moral code.
The New Testament, with its internal contradictions, is evidence of the fabrication of Christianity and the campaign to establish it as a widely accepted system.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
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.
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)