These studies demonstrate yet another way in which our thinking tendencies, many of which may be innate, have contributed to religious faith. It may also help explain why the vast majority of Americans tend to believe in God. Since System 2 thinking requires a lot of effort, the majority of us tend to rely on our System 1 thinking processes when possible. Evidence suggests that the majority of us are more prone to believing than being skeptical. According to a 2005 poll by Gallup, 3 out of every 4 Americans hold at least one belief in the paranormal. The most popular of these beliefs are extrasensory perception (ESP), haunted houses, and ghosts. In addition, the results help explain why some of us are more prone to believe that others. Previous research has found that people differ in their tendency to see intentions and causes in the world. These differences in thinking styles could help explain why some of us are more likely to become believers.
Why and how might analytic thinking reduce religious belief? Although more research is needed to answer this question, Gervais and Norenzayan speculate on a few possibilities. For example, analytic thinking may inhibit our natural intuition to believe in supernatural agents that influence the world. Alternatively, analytic thinking may simply cause us to override our intuition to believe and pay less attention to it. It’s important to note that across studies, participants ranged widely in their religious affiliation, gender, and race. None of these variables were found to significantly relate to people’s behavior in the studies.
Gervais and Norenzayan point out that analytic thinking is just one reason out of many why people may or may not hold religious beliefs. In addition, these findings do not say anything about the inherent value or truth of religious beliefs—they simply speak to the psychology of when and why we are prone to believe. Most importantly, they provide evidence that rather than being static, our beliefs can change drastically from situation to situation, without us knowing exactly why.
Are you a scientist who specializes in neuroscience, cognitive science, or psychology? And have you read a recent peer-reviewed paper that you would like to write about? Please send suggestions to Mind Matters editor Gareth Cook, a Pulitzer prize-winning journalist at the Boston Globe. He can be reached at garethideas AT gmail.com or Twitter @garethideas.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
117 Comments
Add CommentSkeptical analytic thinking depends entirely on intuitive religious faith in the validity of skeptical analytic thinking. A nice circularity, but it doesn't get you anywhere - At least not anywhere that simpler faiths don't go. A God is a God is a God. You don't have to claim a religion to hold faith in one. mindmadereal.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWonder how they defined "God" in their study? In other words, which God does system 2 thinking make you less likely to believe in?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a huge range of possibilities here from the traditional Omnipotent Deity to "God as metaphor" to the nontheistic-but-still-very-spiritual practices of Buddhism.
For example, I can attest to the fact that not just my own scientific training but also my life experience and church community have changed my childhood views of the Eternal.
I thought long and hard about this article; I examined critically every word, hesitated, and meditated over every punctuation puncdtuation mark. I slowed to a snail's pace to apprehend every syllable. And this what I conclude:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPure, unadulterated unreconstituted crappola.
If a person's "core beliefs" can be said to change with a single change of font or with a single sitting with a single text or with seeing different themes in art, for instance, then they can hardly be said to be core beliefs.
Further more, and perhaps more to the point; the vast majority of the world's finest critical thinkers were also profoundly religious, or at least deists. I believe I can say that without contradiction about the present as well.
More wishful thinking by Sciam, I think.
James- Good morning
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this#1 Faith and religion are two different concepts. Ie. I have faith in myself, my family etc. yet I am an atheist.A scientist can also have faith but when it comes to doing science faith does not work.
#2 We did not evolve from monkeys we evolved from a species of primate that no longer exists. A species does not evolve from an animal that is still living on earth.
#3 Humans did not evolve with the "help" anyone. All life evolved starting about 3.5 billion years ago according to the earliest fossilized bacterial microbes found to date. Remember the name of this magazine is Scientific American, you know science? And where did these original bacterial microbes come from you may ask? Answer - the universe, "We are all star stuff". Carl Sagan
Have a good day.
James, you're right that we didn't evolve from monkeys -- but we did evolve from the common ancestor of apes and monkeys. We're just apes that walk upright, have larger brains and less hair. That's all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot sure what you mean by "with the help of higher intelligence," but there is absolutely no scientific proof of this invisible man/spirit/being in the clouds concerned with just one species on earth. Correct me if I'm wrong.
The title of this article completely misrepresents the research. It doesn't show what the title claims, but shows a particular pattern in a small group of undergraduates when asked to perform some tasks. The authors don't even seem to suggest that this behavior is somehow representative of larger groups or that this experiments reflects ordinary religious reasoning.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdigital,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthat is irrelevant. science isn't the only tool through which to understand reality. to claim it is is the philosophical bias of positivism.
Well said.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI looked over the supplemental data for this study, and I agree that the results seem pretty solid. So my question is, when is S.A. going to start promoting critical thinking by changing over to a more difficult to read font?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would also like to see these types of studies expanded to another area that has an excessive amount of intuitive/emotional reacting: politics. Does encouraging critical thinking also make people more inclined to be rational about political beliefs? Making some progress there would be a great contribution to society.
Ironic in that some readers told us that the font in our 2010 redesign was tougher to read. Now the Art director can say we were just trying to make everyone better critical thinkers!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho are you quoting? The article never mentions the "core beliefs" you reference. The article also never makes the claim that any beliefs are "core." Those are your words. Which is why _I_ put them in quotation marks. Please clarify why you did, since you aren't actually quoting anyone.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is what I meant by faith and the help of a higher intelligence. I was not talking about a god of any kind, and faith is what we must have when we go into the unknown; we must have faith or "believe", would probably be a better word, that with our own effort, we will actually make it to the point we are headed. When we evolve, we acquire more intelligence, which is a higher intelligence than we had. This higher intelligence we acquired allows us to function in our new environment, because the old environment is no longer functional for us...it may no longer have the right kind of food or no longer have enough of it, so we would no longer be able to survive in the old environment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not saying you are right or wrong about us evolving from any kind of monkey because there is no DNA that proves that we did. What I am saying, and I still believe, that we evolved from ourselves - from our own DNA because like another commenter said, "we are a product of stardust.", and there is no other way we could've got on this planet, but come from the stars. There is a too large a variety of plants, animals, mammals, fish, and birds for us to have sprang from each other or just magically appear here one day. If you still do not know what I am trying to say, then there is nothing else I am willing to do to help you understand.
Quoting from the authors themselves, writing in Science:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese findings provoke the question of exactly
at which stage of processing analytic strategies
influence religious belief. We suggest three possibilities
for future research.
First, analytic processing
may directly inhibit the low-level intuitions
that presumably support religious beliefs, rather
than acting specifically on higher-order religious
cognitions. In support of this possibility, manipulations
known to interfere with analytic thinking
also increase the tendency to engage in teleological
thinking (25).
Second, engagement with
analytic thinking may leave such low-level intuitions
operational, yet inhibit the development
of higher-order religious beliefs as they
begin to arise in appropriate cultural contexts.
That is, people may still draw, for example, on
teleological or dualistic intuitions, yet analytically
override theistic beliefs.
Third, rather than
inhibiting low-level intuitions directly, or inhibiting
theistic tendencies resulting from intuitive
processes, analytic thinking might allow people
to reflectively override existing religious beliefs.
All three of these possibilities are broadly
consistent with the present results, and may be
complementary accounts rather than alternatives.
We leave these intriguing possibilities for future
research.
Nice try. Your claim that skepticism "depends entirely on intuitive religious faith" fallaciously infers that skeptics never find scientific proof to support their initial skepticism, when, in fact, they often do.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdigital debris didn't say we evolved from any kind of monkey.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHe pointed out that _you_ are right that we didn't evolved from monkeys.
In doing so, he was pointing out your apparent misunderstanding that _anyone_ thinks we evolved from monkeys. No one thinks that. At least not anyone that understands evolutionary theory.
How is demanding scientific proof of a claim on the comment thread of a scientific magazine _irrelevant_?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease refer to the address bar before attempting to undermine relevancy. Please note: www.SCIENTIFICamerican.com
I missed the part where it says "small group of undergraduates..." and where it says the 3 different studies were conducted on the *same small group of undergraduates.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen again, when I try to view the paper I can only see the abstract because I do not have a subscription to the journal in which it was published. Are you able to see the full text article? Can you cite the bit where you are referencing the sample size for the 3 different experiments? That might be helpful.
Wow, I've got to stop reading the comments after these articles... People hold so hard to their ignorance and irrationality, it is both tiring and depressing to see.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn June 2012, Cognition will publish a similar study where they measured several different aspects of religiosity. To measure, they "examined associations of God beliefs, religious engagement (attendance at religious services, praying, etc.), conventional religious beliefs (heaven, miracles, etc.) and paranormal beliefs (extrasensory perception, levitation, etc.)"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can't see the full-text for this article, but would be interested if you find anything where they go into a little more detail on exactly what/who they mean by "God."
Your chosen phrase "a higher intelligence" is commonly used to denote a single supreme entity who either placed humans on the earth or guided evolution to it. I see where you were going with that part, but perhaps your words could have been better chosen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are incorrect regarding the lack of DNA links with other primates (though you keep referencing monkeys). There is a great deal of commonality between humans and the great apes of Africa. It's not enough to interbreed, and in any case, the chromosome count doesn't match (46 for humans, 48 for at least some apes). It is, though, strong evidence that we evolved from a common ancestor and when combined with the fossil record that shows a gradual transition--with some dead ends--from the clearly ape-like pre-Australopithecus to modern Homo sapiens features.
In your first comment, you said we evolved "with the help of higher intelligence."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn your second comment, you said "When we evolve, we acquire more intelligence..."
So, at first, you seem to be saying some higher intelligence helped us to evolve. But then you turn around and say that evolution itself led to, or caused, the higher intelligence that resulted in helping our selves to evolve?
iLoveLucy:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI knew, as I depressed the "enter" key, the the quotation marks would be construed as incorrect grammer. But I have faith in my inference that when one speaks of one's "fundamental belief", or "Faith in God", or "Creator", or "Spirit of the Universe", one is necessarily speaking about one's "core beliefs."
Indeed, how could they be otherwise. Tell me, do you have any?
Nor am I mistaken in my assertion that quotation marks may be used for purposes other than attribution. I'm sorry If you inferred otherwise.
Your correction might have been easier to take if you had something intelligent to write in response to my underlying premise; as written it seems as though you are merely "picking the fly poop out of the pepper".
As far as your claim that there is too much variety among species, perhaps you aren't aware of the vast commonalities. When we look at the bone structures of animals and fish, the blueprints are the same. We're actually not so very different. Also, mammals ARE animals. Not sure why you delineated there.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you knew it, why wouldn't you choose the grammAtically correct single apostrophe? Using quotes is generally reserved for challenging something someone has actually claimed. You were attempting to challenge a claim that isn't being made here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow is your premise that they were not core beliefs to begin with relevant enough to even justify a response?
Your premise must reasonably follow the one that preceded it.
The premise preceding yours is already pointing out that religious belief seems to have not so much to do with what you refer to as "core beliefs" anyway.
Besides, by arriving at your profound "crappola" conclusion, you've only reinforced the findings of the study published in the journal _Science_.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHad you been using the intuitive part of your brain, you might not have come to such a critical conclusion. ;)
Personally, I'd like to get _real_ analytical and read the actual study, but I can't access the full-text version. Maybe you had more luck?
In order to pretend that James Davis did not mean to infer exactly what "help by a higher intelligence" would mean in any other post in the same context requires assuming James Davis doesn't think beings without intelligence evolve at all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf "help by a higher intelligence" merely means evolving is the acquisition of higher intelligence, what does that mean for beings that do not appear to be sentient at all?
By the way, if I were just looking for a grammatical error to correct, there were several to choose from Timbo. I could have just arrogantly said something about what happens when people try too hard to 'sound' smarter than they really are - and then don't bother to edit their posts before hitting 'enter' keys.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut I didn't. Because the point wasn't to discredit you as a writer. Instead, the point was to discredit the relevancy of your post. In your post, you used quotes to pretend the article was claiming something about 'core beliefs' and then challenged that claim. This is colloquially referred to as a 'straw man.'
Not so dissimilar from your attack on me - attempting to make it seem I was just nitpicking your grammar or punctuation when in reality I was obviously calling into question your distorted take on what the article claimed. A pattern seems to be emerging.
Thanks for the tip. I'll see if I can get access or a .pdf from the editor or author(s).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou need to learn more about evolution... just saying'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll it takes is a small amount of common sense to realize that the bible contradicts it self on every page.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll churches "con" people the same way for money and power. Some are worst than others. Yet, still...
This has nothing to do with having faith in something wonderful and all powerful above ourselves. The more we learn, the more we go toward truth or god and away from the foolishness caused by the church in the effort to control everything.
Thinking clearly brings us closer to truth (whatever our faith) and away from false ideas.
Preach it, Bops! "Thinking clearly brings us closer to truth (whatever our faith) and away from false ideas."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEveryone has core beliefs, it's just the first stuff we learned... Give people more credit for smarts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs we learn new stuff, we all update "old" learned stuff for new learned stuff. It's so basic. What's the big problem?
All it takes is the right information, for any of us to make a u-turn and core beliefs change.
Thinking tends to reduce belief in religion. Reduced belief in religion tends to reduce belief in God. Retaining faith with little or no religion, leads to something like the fingernail trimming god of James Joyce.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, Lucy, I didn't really say that, that is just how you understood it, or that is what you thought I meant.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, mammals are animals, but when you say them together, animals include reptiles and such that lay eggs, mammals feed their young milk...humans are mammals and we are not compatible with any other mammal or animal on this planet. Since nature will not allow us to reproduce with any other mammal or animal on this planet because our DNA is too different, then we had to evolved from ourselves. You don't have to be Albert E. to figure that out.
"What about beings that don't seem to be sentient?" Every living thing on this planet is "sentient". Let me tell you about one: The dandelion. Cut it down two or three times with your lawnmower and it will only grow high enough to stay away from your blade...bloom and go to seed over night. Don't you think that dandelion acquired intelligence, higher intelligence than what it had to survive in a new environment and it used that intelligence to evolve to a lesser height? I think it did and it didn't need a god to tell it to do that. Stop trying to over think things.
There is zero evidence for any supernatural non-existent beings termed as 'gods'. Period. That can be said as a 100% truth, and ever will it be so. That scientific analysis will take one to that conclusion is hardly a break through, it is logically consistent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho said people don't have core beliefs?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistimbo555 brought up "core beliefs" as if he were quoting someone else who brought up "core beliefs".
timbo555 said, "If a person's "core beliefs" can be said to change with a single change of font or with a single sitting with a single text or with seeing different themes in art, for instance, then they can hardly be said to be core beliefs."
(NOTE: The article doesn't actually say what he says it says, either, with respect to "single changes" and "single sittings." Methinks he didn't read it as carefully as he claims...)
If you replace "core beliefs" with "religious belief" - an actual, accurate quote from the article - his post would read:
If a person's religious beliefs can be said to change with a single change of font or with a single sitting with a single text or with seeing different themes in art, for instance, then they can hardly be said to be religious beliefs. <-- Now, it doesn't make sense anymore.
To be clear, when timbo555 is talking about "core beliefs" he is not necessarily talking about the core beliefs you are talking about Bops.
timbo555 also said "But I have faith in my inference that when one speaks of one's "fundamental belief", or "Faith in God", or "Creator", or "Spirit of the Universe", one is necessarily speaking about one's "core beliefs."(sic)"
So, Bops, while you and I 100% agree that core beliefs evolve with new information or new ways of thinking, it is timbo555 who has posted that he does not buy that such beliefs can be so adaptable.
I cut and pasted your comments. What do you mean you didn't really say that? It's exactly what you said.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you understand evolution to *be acquiring higher intelligence, how can higher intelligence *also "help" the process?
The two comments I quoted amount to a circular argument.
For the record, genetic mutations do not occur because the species 'thought' them up. The dandelion didn't 'think' to make itself shorter.
Hold your bets, pokerplyer ;)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm perfectly satisfied with more fodder.
Well it's science, not faith, that tells me we did not evolve from monkeys. Monkeys are relatively recent additions to the primate family tree - our most recent common ancestor is millions of years in the past.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'd say that Faith is not endorsing a belief as true, but instead knowing and accepting that one must submit to the will of God, and acknowledging that He's above all of us. Sustaining that something is true would be rather a belief than a Faith, as Faith always has a meaning in the field of the spiritual and supernatural world. You can't have Faith in anything but in God, but you can believe that many different facts other people don't accept as actual are true. Belief and Faith is never the same thing, nor even similar things.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy friend believes in creationism and evolution, his wife believes in no evolution. They have faith in their beliefs. Who is right?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPsychological studies are hard to do because you cannot be sure that you are measuring what you think you are measuring. The tasks used in this one seem particularly suspect. Which statue you like says how you decide about faith?!? For the record, I would expect for the study's conclusions to be correct, but the study itself looks like junk.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor clarity, I think there should be two words for faith, for there are clearly two kinds.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne can have faith in what cannot be proven, such as deities. This is really faith in the trustworthiness of whatever person or book told us that gods exist. Without evidence, this is the only source of such beliefs. This kind of faith is inherently divisive, as is creates worthy believers and unworthy non-believers.
The other faith is in that which we can see is wise in shared experience. Faith that loving one's neighbor makes a better world is well-founded in experience. Faith that opening oneself to the suffering of others with compassion leads to actions that benefit all is similarly wise. Staying calm and thoughtful in the face of difficulty keeps us from doing things that we later regret. This kind of faith can be chosen with the same results by those who do and do not believe in deities. This kind of faith is inherently inclusive because it is founded in what can be experienced and verified by anyone. This is the only faith that interests me.
This article is a duplicate and is found elsewhere on the site. This is a duplicate of my response to the older copy of the same article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is some objective proof for all of you, in list form and in no particular order, given in charity:
1. There is one God.
2. The Old Testament is the history of man's fall from God and subsequent journey back to Him.
3. God became Man to suffer and to die unjustly so that His justice could be fulfilled and man could be reconciled to God.
4. Jesus Christ, who is God, lived, performed many miracles and gave Himself to be tortured and killed in expiation for the sins of the whole world.
5. Jesus rose after three days in the tomb and was resurrected by His own power as he foretold.
6. Jesus told Peter that he is giving him the keys to the kingdom and that everything he bound on earth would be bound in heaven. This is the teaching authority of the Church. He also said, "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church." This made Peter the first pope of The Catholic Church.
7. For 2,000 years there has been an unbroken line of popes taking us right to the present.
8. The Church has made mistakes and people have died and even popes have made terrible decisions and sinned awfully but none of this changes the fact the the Church was founded by God himself and is the only true Church and deposit of Christian tradition.
9. Priests have the power to forgive sins as an extension of the power given to the apostles themselves by Jesus who commissioned them saying "whose sins you forgive are forgiven them and whose sins you keep bound are kept bound." The Sacrament of Reconciliation is one of the greatest gifts of God to man.
10. God loves you more than you can even begin to imagine and created you to live forever in perfect happiness.
If any of the above is troublesome to you intellectually, look deeper. Ultimately, you must resign yourselves to the fact that God's ways are not our ways. Innocent people die, a loved one gets cancer or dies suddenly, a child suffers somehow, all of this happens because God has either allowed it to happen or because he has ordained it to happen, there is no other way. We look at a tragic event and lose faith and weep and ask why but we should instead strive to pray for comfort and to praise God. His ways are not our ways. We cannot see the big picture, the butterfly effect created by the events in our lives and in our world, tragic or otherwise, only God can see that. Our consolation is that no matter what happens, it is always for the ultimate good because God, the Fountain of all Goodness, Mercy, and Perfect Love has allowed or ordained it.
DonPaul, if your statement "Skeptical analytic thinking depends entirely on intuitive religious faith in the validity of skeptical analytic thinking" is an example of what you believe to be analytic thinking, hie thee to a library. If you can't do better after a year of study, then give up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this'This kind of faith is inherently divisive, as is creates worthy believers and unworthy non-believers'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, well said, the basic logic which the christianists hate. System 1 vs System 2
"#2 We did not evolve from monkeys we evolved from a species of primate that no longer exists. A species does not evolve from an animal that is still living on earth."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is false or at least not required conceptually. In any case, "species" and the hierarchical "tree of life" is not part of nature, but man's classification system we impose on nature to help us understand the nature of life. The label "species" is the man-imposed idea that two different species do not mate and produce viable offspring; makes sense to consider inability to mate a viable distinction, but it doesn't apply universally to all life forms, since "mating" and not all life forms are so limited in how genes are exchanged. Bacteria are not said to mate, but exchange genetic material more readily than life forms that are said to "mate".
Pax Vobiscum is 'Peace be with you'. The only other Latin I remember is 'Ubi ignis est'. Our Latin teacher nearing retirement age stood about six feet tall, was very beautiful and someone who would get after your ass in a fun way. As she strode down the hall her Latin students would call out 'where is the fire'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn answer to the title of the article...if not the body matter:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"They apply critical thinking to their god-story, realizing it doesn't make any sense and has no evidence."
T
Perhaps if sentences written are in the normal ways not, this also causes critical thinking more in the readers. Or maybe causes giving up by them instead. I wonder if g33k 0r scrmabled writing does this aslo?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf SA is a liberal leaning magazine, it can help the Democratic Party candidates by using hard to read fonts on its pages to turn all it readers into skeptical, analytical thinkers .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm shocked that a change of font could actually influence someone "to express less belief in God and religion." Strange, how did they measure the belief delta?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso just because a bunch of people had their beliefs backed up by their "System 1" does not mean that everyone is constructed like that. Its not just religion but every discipline of life has more System1 thinkers.
I haven't believed in God since I was 12 but I do believe in ghosts—or at least, the one I came face to face with. For me to believe in anything, I need evidence that can't be debunked.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. You have assigned no meaning to faith. Do you have faith that the earth will revolve around the sun? That your family will love you? That the distant future will include humanity in its present form? That rational people will always act for the common good?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2. Untrue. Many species evolved in geographical isolation from species that continued to exist. Think finches on the Galapagos.
3. This comment is based on YOUR faith. Question: What preceded the Big Bang? Just as species evolve, science also evolves. So, if you think you have any answers to any questions you may ask, keep in mind that in 100 years the science will have evolved and your answers will be untrue.
ILoveLucy = I Love Myself
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately,for most people their religious beliefs tend to be more intuitive than analytical. The gift of intuition does play a vital role in life and should not be despised. It does quickly unite many things at a subconsciously level, so as to give us a sense of direction. However, it is important that it should not be trusted as authoritative, and whatever direction it suggests should be subjected to both reason and testing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisArguably the greatest scientific mind of the last four centuries was Sir Isaac Newton (physicist, mathematician, astronomer). He had an estimated IQ of 190 (Einstein's IQ was 160). When a number of Europe’s most prominent mathematicians were challenged to solve an extremely intractable problem, and each had failed in their individual efforts to do so over a six month period, Newton was subsequently handed the same problem at lunch-time, and successfully solved it before bed-time.
As Newton considered the revelations of scripture with the incredible information and design found in the natural world, his belief in God was not weakened but strengthened. He articulated the conclusion that "...The main business of natural philosophy is to argue from phenomena without feigning hypotheses, and to deduce causes from effects, till we come to the very first Cause....and that's why we study science. Whence is it that nature does nothing in vain; and whence arises all that order and beauty which we see in the world? Was the eye contrived without skill in optics, and the ear without knowledge of sounds?... In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God's existence. It is the perfection of God's works that they are all done with the greatest simplicity. He is the God of order and not of confusion."
A modern brilliantly executed treatise (translated from German into English) entitled In the Beginning was Information http://www.clv-server.de/pdf/255255.pdf confirms the total rationality of Newton’s conclusion.
The real reason why so many today have a "disbelief" in an intelligent universal Creator is that as people we believe what we want to believe (whether highly educated or not), even if our belief may be totally irrational. For after all, a belief in the Creator requires submission to His governing physical, social and moral laws, and an inescapable recognition of a future judgment in which every human being will be called into account for the life lived here upon earth.
It's funny, that even though the Bible says, somewhere, that faith is "better" than empiricism, like Thomas, I don't (can't, never have,) believe anything religious, based on faith alone. As for the Bible, I regard the Bible as the weakest and most badly presented argument/hypothesis for religious belief around today. It is THAT logical inconsistency, I believe, which explains why analytical thinkers tend to reject Biblical doctrine. The Bible is very bad science, presented in an arcane and obsolete idiom. Nevertheless, the defendant with the worse lawyer isn’t necessarily the guilty party.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd so, in spite of all the foregoing I remain a deeply religious man. How so? I find that nothing I have learned about science or the scientific method allows me to believe what the rank atheist believes. It would be pure human hubris and flying in the face of all we know about science, to believe that the mind of man is the most complex, naturally occurring, functioning system to have evolved (yes, I believe in evolution,)since the universe began. It is even more illogical to believe that the tiny window into reality afforded to man with his very limited 5 senses can perceive the most complex of such systems.
Why should evolution have stopped at the exact point where human perception ends, at our human existence? If Gods existed, why should we have the intellectual tools to perceive them? How could a ringworm have any but the weakest perception of the nature of the human being in which he dwells? Faced with the statistical impossibility of such a hypothetical coincidence, (that I should be able to see/perceive a God,) all that I can do is to look for the evidence that falsifies this coincidence. Weak as it is, the evidence presented by the Bible is the only thing I have going, for me to arrive at any possible conclusion on what is, perhaps, actually unknowable. For me, God exists because he must exist, by generalization (inductive reasoning) from the fact of our own human existence. Even though such extrapolation is arguably the very weakest form of logic, it is all that we have, and that is why I believe in God. (I have deliberately left out any personal mystical experience I might believe I have had, because such arguments, (arguments from illusion,) can never really be shared.)
After reading the article and all the comments so far, I wonder how many--and which--of the commentors are actually readers of Scientific American?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere's a guess: the Christianist commentors don't read the magazine. They were directed here by anti-science religious websites.
Not that the religious-scientifically inclined Venn diagram doesn't overlap. I've read that about 2/3 of American scientists profess to be religious.
However, the study I read also said that scientist religiosity correlates inversely with degree of scientific accomplishment.
As for this article--obviously what gets the Christianists' knickers in the biggest twist is the conclusion that degree of religious faith depends on context.
That conclusion is obvious to me as something of a sociologist, because religion, contrary to what religionists think (if what they do can be called thinking), evolved as a form of tribal reification. So of course it's reinforced tribally, while analysis, which is inherently individualistic, depresses religiosity.
Which mean religious people practice something akin to "situational morality." Which they profess to abhor.
Which is also why the most religious people belong to tightly socially integrated religious organizations, which constantly reinforce their particular flavor of magical thinking.
If one is uncertain how System 1 thinking - which "relies on shortcuts and other rules-of-thumb" - works at its worst, one need only read the refutations here that rely on words like "crappola" or the argument that "the essay is wrong because I believe in God." The experiments were essentially very simple: the subjects were exposed to stimuli that stimulate analytic thinking (as well-established by brain scans), and then revealed that their religious faith had diminished. It's a perfectly solid approach. It may be surprising that the use of difficult typefaces is one of these stimuli, but that doesn't invalidate the research.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes it is all you have, and it is the usual failure in proving a god. But that is all we have from the religious because that is all there is. You can't prove it and you never will, because it is false. There are no supernatural beings as you say. And for the religious to use this system of nonsense to justify their hatred of others is just outrageous. Why would you even want to be associated with these fools?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this'inescapable recognition'? See #63. Prove it. Without all the gobbledegook. But that's all there is when one tries to prove gods, is gobbledegook. Pages and pages of gobbledegook, with no proof. And yes, I'm currently subscribed to SA.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLarkspur:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe believer goes beyond star stuff to ask the question, "where did the universe come from?" Analytical thinking gets us to that point, but what happens after that, what then? Religion is just one human response to the unanswered question referred to above. Wonder is another and is just as type 1 as type 2. That is where faith resides, I believe.
@ timbo555: You said, "If a person's 'core beliefs' can be said to change with a single change of font or with a single sitting with a single text or with seeing different themes in art, for instance, then they can hardly be said to be core beliefs."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think that's the whole point: With regard to metaphysics, the thinking of most (not all) religious people does not run very deep. They rely more on intuition, which is more easily swayed than analytical thinking since it is not based on the effort that analytical thinking requires. This is why they subscribe to religion: religion does all the thinking for them. Try asking a religious person a simple question such as, "Will your dog go to heaven?" Either they will find the underpinnings of their beliefs slipping a bit, or they will ignore the question, grind in their heels, and reply with something like, "God knows the definitive answer to that and has not told us."
"In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God's existence." Newton would have to wait another couple hundred years for an alternate explanation by another in the pantheon of high-IQ scientists: Darwin.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI dislike placing a fly in the ointment, but given no one else asked, is it possible to be informed of those participating in the study, how many men vs women participated?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd of the responses, were there any revelations as to whether men or women were more religious or analytical thinkers?
Jimfromcanada
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust because religious belief is "one human response" does not make it a good one. Murder is one human response but it isn't one that is considered appropriate by most civilized societies. Both are primitive responses to a challenging world.
"Faith" or belief is unnecessary to an open mind unfettered by dogmatic belief systems. Beyond "star stuff" means that we do not, YET, have the information or technology to answer the question, so we continue to explore to discover more pieces to the great puzzle of the universe. To say - "there must be a God", to answer the unknown is a cheap cop out. How about just acknowledging "I don't know" vs. filling it with ridiculous conjectures and justifying it via faith.
Religious beliefs have historically been violently opposed to scientific inquiry & data (ie. Galileo); and violently opposed to those who did not believe. If all this had been left up to religious believers we might still believe the world is flat and burning those who "don't believe. If there be a "god" - a unifying energy upon which the universe is based - then it is the covalent bond.
As for paranormal phenomena, ie Ghosts – I view these things as just another energy that we have yet to measure & understand. Just because we haven't yet been able to measure it does not make it "magical", nor does it make it fictitious. There is much in this universe that we have yet to understand.
Trying to validate religion or any other belief system is simply a way of justifying primitive, mythological thinking. Belief systems are dogmatic - why? Why would "God" care if we questioned, explored? Consider that certain religious dogmas benefit particular individuals (ie Billy Grahm comes to mind) or organizations (ref. Catholic church). ALL of the typical religious systems require "tithing" of one sort or another. It really is about power & money. Though the typical “believer” tends to ignore these things.
Not that science is perfect; there are power plays in every human system. But, science is based on the best information we have available, now and continues in the quest for answers to the great mysteries based on data & facts. Belief systems are based on mythology & superstition, thereby reinforcing ignorance & immature mental functioning. Humans do love their paradigms and typically choose the easiest path even if it kills them.
The real issue this article brings to light is - WE, each of us, can choose which system, 1 or 2, we want to use & develop... and some insights in how to do so. Vive Vida!
Faith does not have a monopoly on wonder. Every day of the week, analytical thinkers get the the point of "What then?" This is how science progresses, and as science progresses, the sense of wonder becomes ever more heightened. Just because analytical thinkers have not come up with a definitive answer to "where did the universe come from" doesn't mean that they should cease asking the question and say, "God created it." If that's the case, they should cease all medical research and say, "God made us sick."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHa! That's just hirrarious!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm referring to PaxVobiscum's post #47.
Ze says ze'll give us facts. Fact #1? "There is one God."
The list of 'facts' opens with a naked assertion (no, that's not how facts work) and carries on in that vein.
Follow up to the list:
"If any of the above is troublesome to you intellectually, look deeper." (You probably think all of that is bullshit - but that's okay, just stop and think really hard to see if you can come up with a post-hoc rationalization that works for you).
"Ultimately, you must resign yourselves to the fact that God's ways are not our ways." (If you can't find a rationalization, and you still think this is all bullshit, then that's okay - lets just throw logic and reason and intellectual consistency under the bus. There we go. Problem solved!)
I can't even muster up anything all that snarky that can possibly stand up to the unintended inanity of that post. It's a damn hard act to follow.
Vax is a parody of Christianity that demonstrates that particular ideology's flaws and dangers far better than any atheist could hope to explain or warn against. All I can do is underline the comment itself. The added commentary is just to make myself feel a bit more useful.
Unless of course it's a great big Poe. In which case? Well played, zir. Very well played indeed.
The views expressed in this paper are highly misleading. The researchers have not precisely defined what is religious belief. Much of our so-called religious belief are superstition. Hence it is only logical that analytical thinking will change these beliefs. But this does not mean that analytical thinking make people less religious. It only makes them more logical. Since most people are unaware of the science of religion, what they believe or are told to believe are always not true, but is colored by superstition or hypocrisy. These studies correctly demonstrate that our thinking tendencies have contributed to eliminate these from the so-called religious faith. But the point still remains that whatever people call religious belief is not standardized and is not fully scientific.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisbasudeba
Objective proof? Nope. What you've got there is statements in search of proof.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"1. There is one God." That's not proof; that's a statement. You say there is one god, I say prove it. See how that works? A claim is not the proof of that claim.
"2. The Old Testament is the history ...." Again, statement, not proof. Someone wrote something a long time ago. Someone else thinks it's true. Nothing about that is proof of the truth of what was written. Otherwise, I could say, "Homer's Odyssey is historical," and that would be proof that the cyclops Polyphemus is the son of Poseidon.
Shall I go on? (Please say yes! I can't wait to get to the bit about the popes ... oh and number 10! That's going to be the best!)
Science of religion?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis just in: Variances in energy efficiency of H->BoC reaction varies between Latin, English, and Spanish IEu.
(H->BoC => Host to Body of Christ)
(IEu => Incantation of the Eucharist)
Methodology: The rest BoC value of several standardized hosts were measured by using the recently developed pneumatometer device. Pnematoedes (analogous to electrodes) were placed at either side of a host to measure the rest potential of spirit energy, as measured in dPB (deci-pneunato-bells) as per the Chopra/Behe convention. It was discovered that...
*snort*
I think I feel a Tui ad coming on.
The article implies that people may believe in God or have faith because it is easier than being "skeptical" or analytical, until they are prompted to think... I would suggest this could only be a short term phenomenon. While "faith" by nature is not a static thing our ability and propensity to reason and question means that we need to move beyond what others say and convince ourselves - and science is not the only tool to understand this reality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom my experience as a Christian - faith after critical thinking and analysing life is much stronger.
In music when a person sing or play a A tone, they are in fact expressing a speed of vibration, thus a number.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll "A" tone are powers of one-another such as 110 vib. per sec/220 vib. per sec/ 440 etc
A person who sings is using an intuitive mathematical ability of the senses whether they know it or not. Intuition is not illogical and has been proven so in other studies.
At first, a novice critical thinker may reject is learned concept of God. With time and true critical thinking he may not prove or disprove either way. This study is bias and full of loose end.
"Intuition is not illogical and has been proven so in other studies."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCounterexample: The Gambler's Fallacy.
I'm still puzzling over the first article where they claimed that if asked the question, "5 machines make 5 widgets in 5 minute. How many minutes will 100 machines take to make 100 widgets?" an athiest critical thinker will say 5 minutes and assume that a machine takes 5 minutes to make a widget. I guess thats how you tell I'm agnostic because its not clear to me that the 5 machines aren't integral to the process. 100 machines would be able to consolidate jobs and be done in 4 minutes. That is how 3 gods became 1?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBarendT says "From my experience as a Christian - faith after critical thinking and analysing life is much stronger." Your experience is compatible with the study's results. They found that belief in supernatural phenomenon goes down after analytical thinking. Indeed, even self-identified religious people scored lower on their scale of "religious belief" in part because the measure included questions that concern "supernatural beliefs" (angels, life after death, etc)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow does one respond to such an absurd statement?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTell me how mass murder, rape, starvation, and war are good to god. I mean I know he likes those things since the bible states he orders these things but how can that be good?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat created god(s)?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"But," says man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It proves you exist and so therefore you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
You are partly correct. We did not evolve from monkeys. Monkeys and humans evolved from a common ancestor.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCareful there: It depends on how you define 'monkey'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAronRa has something to say on the subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A-dMqEbSk8
Obviously this shouldn't be read as support for James in any way... But it's important that the rest of us get the story straight too. ^_^
Note that AronRa isn't the final word here, either: The precise classification of 'monkey' is a contentious enough to get heated.
digitaldebris is right. We come from common ancestors - the apes and the humans. There is a DNA that proves it – more than 80 percent of the genome is identical with certain animals, among them apes, pigs, etc. James Davis should check before writing wrong things.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am an atheist. But why do not those religious people stop interfering in God's strategy; if he wants to create by evolution than it is his decision. Creation is still going on, if you are able to see. The 6 “days” is only a metaphor.
Do not think, man is the crown of creation. We are only one animal among others and are not better than the others (most likely worse). Darwin is right, even some people do not like this.
The real problem is polymorphism. Like with the word gay which means happy, liberals stole it to mean homosexuals are happy. Critical thinking means criticizing but liberals added their definition to make atheism sound logical.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen one adheres to a system of thought created to support atheism, one tends to think atheistic thoughts, which are faithless, unbelieving, and godless. When one adheres to truth and creative thinking as defined by the Creator Jesus Christ, God is absolute perfection and an essential part of everything.
It's really flattering that all you've got for me is an ad hominem attack, Mr. Tooth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's unfortunate the Australopithecus reference flew clear over you head, though.
Sorry to wake you up but consider this info below:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNever underestimate the power of human imagination run wild. They can even make monkeys out of us.
On December 9, 2010 in The New York Times science writer Nicolas Wade wrote: "Anthropologists have been thrown into turmoil about the nature and future of their profession after a decision by the American Anthropological Association at its recent annual meeting to strip the word ‘science’ from a statement of its long-range plan.”
In pro-evolutionist Bill Bryson’s best seller, “A Short History of Nearly Everything” he writes about “The American Museum of Natural History Hall of Human Biology and Evolution in New York that has an absorbing diorama that depicts life-sized creations of a male and female walking side by side across the ancient African plain. The tableau is presented with such conviction that it is easy to overlook the consideration that virtually everything above the footprints is imaginary.”
He asked the curator of the museum and paleoanthropologist, Ian Tattersall, if “he was troubled about the amount of artistic license that was taken in reconstructing the figures,” Tattersall replied, “It’s always a problem in making recreations. You wouldn’t believe how much discussion can go into deciding details like whether Neanderthals had eyebrows or not…We simply can’t know the details of what they looked like…If I had to do it again, I think I might have made them slightly more apelike and less human.”
In 2004 National Geographic tested four paleoartists by giving them the same fossil bones at different times without telling them other paleoartist would be creating drawings from the fossils. Not one of the drawings looked like the others—and none of them had any body hair on them!
This whole field has proven again and again that many of these researchers have lied and continue to lie. The most brazen—and unfounded—theories are proclaimed only to find the research was faked or non-existent.
This is chicanery not science.
This is weird imagination not science.
This is absolute fraud.
Talk about honesty in the "sciences."
Sorry to wake you up but consider this info below:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNever underestimate the power of human imagination run wild. They can even make monkeys out of us.
On December 9, 2010 in The New York Times science writer Nicolas Wade wrote: "Anthropologists have been thrown into turmoil about the nature and future of their profession after a decision by the American Anthropological Association at its recent annual meeting to strip the word ?science? from a statement of its long-range plan.?
In pro-evolutionist Bill Bryson?s best seller, ?A Short History of Nearly Everything? he writes about ?The American Museum of Natural History Hall of Human Biology and Evolution in New York that has an absorbing diorama that depicts life-sized creations of a male and female walking side by side across the ancient African plain. The tableau is presented with such conviction that it is easy to overlook the consideration that virtually everything above the footprints is imaginary.?
He asked the curator of the museum and paleoanthropologist, Ian Tattersall, if ?he was troubled about the amount of artistic license that was taken in reconstructing the figures,? Tattersall replied, ?It?s always a problem in making recreations. You wouldn?t believe how much discussion can go into deciding details like whether Neanderthals had eyebrows or not?We simply can?t know the details of what they looked like?If I had to do it again, I think I might have made them slightly more apelike and less human.?
In 2004 National Geographic tested four paleoartists by giving them the same fossil bones at different times without telling them other paleoartist would be creating drawings from the fossils. Not one of the drawings looked like the others?and none of them had any body hair on them!
This whole field has proven again and again that many of these researchers have lied and continue to lie. The most brazen?and unfounded?theories are proclaimed only to find the research was faked or non-existent.
This is chicanery not science.
This is weird imagination not science.
This is absolute fraud.
Talk about honesty in the "sciences."
This study seems to have only applied its findings to belief in God. But intuition is used in many aspects of our lives. I'd like them to research these questions:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Do people feel less loving after exposure to analytical words?
2. Do they have less appreciation of nice weather or a beautiful view?
3. Do people have less faith and trust in their friends, parents, relatives?
4. Are people less generous, compassionate, forgiving?
5. Have fewer jumps of correct intuition when solving analytical puzzles? Intuition is not merely a hindrance in solving mathematical problems. "Elegance", which is nothing more than an intuitive feeling, is a very highly regarded feature of mathematical proofs, and intuition is constantly used by mathematicians to help them in their work.
6. Are people less able to process and understand large masses of information? Intuition is partly an unconscious mechanism for the brain to handle masses of data, and its results can then be validated by analytical processes. You could say that intuition is more like a neural network compared with analytical methods. It is possible to answer questions with a neural network that you cannot even approach using an analytical method.
So one way of looking at this study is to wonder if exposure to analytical words causes a temporary, minor lobotomy that prevents the brain from working in an integrated way, at its fullest capacity.
Since much of the discussion deals with belief in God, I would say that because of many personal experiences, I do believe in God, but I could not possibly say what God is. I prefer not to use a pronoun for God (you could choose any one of them: He, She, It, I, You, We, They) and I also believe that whatever the nature of God is, we are not intended to be able to prove God's existence or understand God's nature. The only thing that I really know is that the universe is not the mechanistic object that it appears to be, but we already know that from the existence of quantum mechanics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI also believe in life after death because of all the mysterious experiences I have seen and heard of, so I hope that there will be proof of God's existence after we die.
I also don't believe this is an unscientific view. I have experienced so many unexplainable phenomena, and received so much personal help, that it would be unscientific, ungrateful, and cowardly not to acknowledge that they happen.
On the other hand, I don't believe that religions really represent God very well because of all the man-made stuff that creeps into even the best of religions. But maybe some of what religions say is true and good for us. The bad parts of religion are cause for many people to fall away in anger and disgust and deny anything good about any religions at all. But that is an emotional response, not a logical one. A true logical position might be that you have never experienced any evidence of God, therefore you cannot prove God's existence, but so many profess to have experienced evidence of God that it would be rash to conclude that God does not exist. Miracles may have happened, but of course they are only proof to the person they happened to. To everyone that person tells about the miracle, it becomes just a story about a miracle, not the miracle itself, and therefore unprovable.
One thing I don't believe in is Infinity. I don't have any reason to believe that anything at all is actually infinite, including God, God's love, the universe, or time. Sure there is a great deal of exaggerated language about how very big God is, but infinite?
As for evolution, I am a firm believer that it happened the way that evolutionary biologists describe, but I cannot rule out the idea that God or Aliens or Time Travelers intervened to produce a result that they wanted.
When talking about God and faith, it's difficult to speak out your thoughts without offending another reader. Although the evidence you have listed may be your beliefs and therefore what you consider to be true, you cannot list these as 'objective proof'. I believe in God, but I could never prove His existence any more than atheists are able to disprove His existence. All we can do is share our thoughts and experiences with those who want to know.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, the question of suffering you mention is a difficult one, but I do think you have to be careful. Yes, we have to accept we don't have all the answers, but I don't believe that we can claim to serve a God who is all-loving and all-powerful, yet suggest that He could 'ordain' suffering without falling into some serious contradictions. Bad things happen, but God does not ordain them, and we should never praise him for suffering. Yes, He can bring something good out of bad circumstances, but I cannot attribute the causes of suffering to God.
But that is all off topic. As for the research conducted by Gervais and Norenzayan, I am curious about just how 'religious' the members of the sample group are. I know many people who would say they are religious, agnostic, spiritual etc., yet their religiosity is not unwavering, and will change constantly depending on their mood and circumstances. Then there are those who fervently place their beliefs at the centre of their lives on a daily basis, throughout all situations - I wonder if these people would be so easily swayed after a little analytical thinking.
As an analytical person, I find that the more I study the Bible and analyse it and question its accuracy by weighing it against other historical records, the more I am inclined to believe in it, at least as an accurate record of human history - in terms of personal faith, I believe there is far more to it than analysis and arguments. There are a few people in this thread who have unjustifiably branded Christians 'fools', called the Bible contradictory or suggested that such faith is nonsense and is incompatible with scientific development. Just like any academic field, you must study and understand theology and fundamental religious works before you can support any arguments either for or against any faith.
I said that God either allows or ordains. Nothing can happen outside of God's ability to stop it. If something happens, it is because it ultimately results in the greatest good. We may not be able to see how or why from our tiny perspective, that is where faith in God as the fountain of all goodness or justice comes into play.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for mentioning beliefs in God having the potential to offend other people, that is a contemporary notion that I do not subscribe to. I don't disagree with you that it may offend people; I do disagree with the implication that I should, because of that, not explain my beliefs. Truth is truth, even if it hurts someone's ears.
If you are walking down the street and you see someone talking to their imaginary friend are you offended? Of course not.You might pity them, but you usually ignore them and go on with your life. This may be frustrating to him when you don't see something that is so obvious to him. Something he desperately needs to believe in. But that's really his problem. Its not something you're going to waste any energy on. That said, You would get offended if he became aggressive in his attempts to make you believe in his friend...trying to make you obey the rules he/his imaginary friend makes.What if he wanted to teach your children about his imaginary friend? Would you get offended?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe bible in no way accurately depicts historical facts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI suggest you read any of the following:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. A Brief Tour of Human Consciousness, by V.S. Ramachandran (or anything by him for that matter)
2. The Optimism Bias, by Tali Sharot
3. The Righteous Mind, by Jonathan Haidt
The first is neurophysiology, the second psychology, and the third is moral reasoning. All will shock you in how little it takes for our brains to be guided down predictable paths.
State your own bias then.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo much wrong in so few words.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFaith is belief in that which cannot be definitively proven to be real.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt requires as much faith to believe in quantum mechanics as it does God. Even more to hold to atheism.
I hold faith in quantum science, but even more in God.
Reading the comments, I'm disappointed first of all, with the responses of several of the faithful towards both the article and those expressing disbelief in any divine actor. Merely stating that what you believe is fact & any lack of understanding on someone else's part must be chalked up to 'God being God' or some such is insulting. The blind dismissal of another's opinion regarding what we believe and why, even if sorely misinformed, is a disservice to that person & your faith. We are made in the image AND likeness of God. There are no philosophical or moral quandaries which can not be answered by a careful and detailed examination of His nature & will as revealed in holy scripture.
I am likewise disappointed by the heavy bias of those commentators who clearly fancy themselves intellectuals, but who speak authoritatively on the subject of theology with what is clearly a very limited understanding of even the most basic principles of the subject. The assumption that science somehow 'debunks' God is silly, and sorely lacking in critical thinking. Which is funny, considering the subject matter.
I would suggest that both groups might wish to read the following literature:
The New American Bible, Revised Edition
The Catechism of the Catholic Church
*these first two should be read simultaneously
The Compact History of the Catholic Church-Alan Schreck
Exploring the Catechism of the Catholic Church-William Shannon
*as companions to the first two
The Oxford Illustrated History of the Bible
*it is impossible to understand what the Bible has to say if you have no clue as to the frame of reference in which it was written
God According to God
The Hidden Face of God
The Science of God
Genesis and the Big Bang
*all written by Gerald Schroeder
Any, and in fact all, of the more than dozen works by John C. Polkinghorne
Finally, I would like to remind all (especially believers in God), that inflammatory, insulting, or hateful responses are unnecessary & uncalled for. Animosity and contempt, especially when fueled by ignorance and arrogance, are destructive to the character of the human beings involved on both sides. We may disagree, sometimes strongly, with each others position. But that does not give us leave to blindly ignore the dignity and respect due each other.
Excellent study. Actually, there are two groups of people. The first group consists of the "critical thinkers" who invented religion and have used it to manipulate the other group. This group consists of the rich, ruling class and their religious sidekicks. The second group consists of the "intuitive thinkers" who, once initiated into this masquerade, starts hallucinating about some questionable future after-life and is encouraged to believe in it as if it exists intuitively. In the process, members of this second group starts policing themselves and begin to conform to the rules laid down by the first group. Therefore, the creation and maintenance of the religious order depends on the first group of consisting of critical thinkers, while the group of intuitive thinkers contribute to the growth of society in an organised manner. The first group provides direction while the second group provides action. As in any corporation, for success we need only a handful of directors and lots of actors.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI understand that this area of research is limited to relying on qualitative results due to the very nature of this subject but still...these conclusions are way too grandiose for my liking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell done, robomsawin. Your last paragraph in particular, was quite profound. Amidst the ongoing and ever-increasing break-down in the moral and ethical character of our society, people inherently know right from wrong ... and just as you said, belief in the Creator does command submission to His laws; as well as a day of reckoning, as it were. The ardent attempts at deception run rampant in almost every arena these days; and those that are caught up in it by their own choosing certainly don't want to have to be accountable for their actions that are purposely aimed to deceive; for probably a plethora of dastardly deeds done; designed to serve themselves well at the expense of the good ones. For them to allow themselves to entertain the thought of the existence of the inescapable day of judgement, would unarguably be horrifying to them. For; after all - they know how bad they are.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven though they make mockery of folks who believe in the Creator, and never miss a chance to get a lick in via public ridicule of others simply for their personal beliefs - you & I share a silent understanding that down deep, they're uncertain - they struggle with the answer to the question they pose to themselves when no one else is there: "Does God really exist? What if He does?" Then, as the remembrance of all the betrayal, and cheating, and deception comes flooding into their heads; they can't help but feel a mild sense of panic start to rise up within them - because they know what they're doing. They recall the turning point; and the decision they chose - because at the time, their zeal for raking in whatever monetary or personal gain that was the "reward" for their participatory misbehaving, overrode any momentary hesitation that on down the road, they'd have to be accountable for what they did.
"Accountable? Me? Nah - I've got my bases covered, and even if I overlooked something, who cares? If we say it's that way, it's that way - because we are in control, and we don't really care if anyone knows we're doing bad things at other people's expense. As long as we get away with it, that's all that matters. We do, after all, reign supreme"
They cannot entertain the thought that the Creator really exists. So anytime the Creator is referenced, they jump right on that stuff, to quell the notion and to aggressively discredit it.
But in the end of it all, their power/control mechanisms will break down as the walls crumble down around them; for they do NOT reign supreme.
The Creator does.
@collettedesmaris To ascribe nefarious motives to any and all who don't share your particular brand of 'Christianity' or believe at all is abhorrent. Why'll there are always exceptions, the vast majority of atheists, agnostics, & deists do what the vast majority of believers do. Try to live life as good, honest, & charitable folk.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs it any surprise at all that so many turn from religion when faced with such animosity & self-righteous judgement? We are told by St. Francis of Assisi "Preach the gospel always, If necessary use words," well the gospel is all about love. God's love for us & ours for each other. You missed a great opportunity to preach, instead, all I see in your post are words.
As I reread your post, I'm struck by how much you dehumanize the people you speak of. The first thing to come immediately to mind is that of a southern 'gentleman' talking about African-Americans during the reconstruction. You dismiss out of hand any contribution of worth these people have to give to the world.
As Christians, our primary purpose is missional. The Abrahamic covenant declares that Christ will be a saviour for all the nations, not just the chosen few you or I approve of. It is our duty to lead by example, lives that reflect God's love for us. And in so doing, help others find that love in their lives. It is very hard indeed to feel loved when the messenger of love has decided you aren't worthy of that love. A judgement I might add, that we have no authority to make.
Mt 7:1-5, 23
"It may also help explain why the vast majority of Americans tend to believe in God. Since System 2 thinking requires a lot of effort, the majority of us tend to rely on our System 1 thinking processes when possible. Evidence suggests that the majority of us are more prone to believing than being skeptical."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs opposed to a great majority of Atheists blindly (or, as you'd put it, "intuitively," how PC of you) accepting their belief. This article is sophomoric and is rife with fallacies.
i believe it. analytical thinking begins with human observation, whereas intuition can emerge from unobservable origins for me. and i always forfeit one for the other.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst of all ... in order for you to be able to prove the age of something don't you have to have a "control sample" ... since none of us were around a billion years ago ... would lead me to ignore anyone that says they know anything on the subject ... with regards to evolving from a monkey or anything resembling that ... we don't have anything documented since oh, ... lets say around the time of nero and the burning of rome ... which I can safely say ... was a few decades ago ... as far as a study that was created to gather information on a "given subject" is probably tainted since their findings may help achieve getting tenured ... thus leading me to disregard any kind of findings coming from a few pictures that were gathered and presented ...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst of all ... in order for you to be able to prove the age of something don't you have to have a "control sample" ... since none of us were around a billion years ago ... would lead me to ignore anyone that says they know anything on the subject ... with regards to evolving from a monkey or anything resembling that ... we don't have anything documented since oh, ... lets say around the time of nero and the burning of rome ... which I can safely say ... was a few decades ago ... as far as a study that was created to gather information on a "given subject" is probably tainted since their findings may help achieve getting tenured ... thus leading me to disregard any kind of findings coming from a few pictures that were gathered and presented ...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst of all ... in order for you to be able to prove the age of something don't you have to have a "control sample" ... since none of us were around a billion years ago ... would lead me to ignore anyone that says they know anything on the subject ... with regards to evolving from a monkey or anything resembling that ... we don't have anything documented since oh, ... lets say around the time of nero and the burning of rome ... which I can safely say ... was a few decades ago ... as far as a study that was created to gather information on a "given subject" is probably tainted since their findings may help achieve getting tenured ... thus leading me to disregard any kind of findings coming from a few pictures that were gathered and presented ...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee, I have a belief in god, but it is a critical belief. I am defiantly an intuitive thinker. Intuition tells us, that for their to be a beginning of existence, there had to be a cause. However, logic tells us, there is no evidence of god, therefore therefore one cannot believe god exist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow, just because I can come to the conclusion that there was a cause of existence, does not mean that god has to be a conscious being, god could simply be the spark of existence, not a guiding hand in the creation of everything.
Thomas Aquinas, in both his "Summa Theologica" and "Contra Gentes," was exhaustively rational in both questioning and asserting the existence of God. In our own times Charles Taylor, a Canadian philosopher, has done the same in his "Sources of the Self" (Harvard University Press).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Thinker sits near the top of Rodin's 'Gates of Hell', a religious artefact if ever there was one! see http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/fnart/rodin/rodin_gates2.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe authors should perhaps be a little more critical of their own thinking IMHO.
So the implication of this article would seem to be that if we make the effort to be analytical rather than intuitive in our thinking, we will not believe in God. And yet Einstein's analytical thinking has shown us that all matter is a form of energy. What is energy? Science defines it as the ability to do work. Therefore we are all made of this "ability," this force which can neither be created nor destroyed, only changed in form. We are manifestations of it. It is our animating force, which is the definition of spirit. It seems to me that scientific analytical thinking has led us to the spiritual, not away from it!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBill Daley
Buffalo, NY
@DonPaul, What a bunch of rubbish! That's like saying you have the same exact kind of 'faith' in using your eyes to drive down the highway at 90MPH as when you closed your eyes and just 'felt' your way around. I don't have faith in my eye's ability to discern or my critical thinking's record of accuracy - I have proof from the countless times they've done better than chance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, please, stop trying to make the world seem like everyone has an equal philosophy. If you want to use faith, go right ahead, no one is stopping you; but, you don't get to put your superstition with other people's rationality. It's just not right.
Yeah tharriss; many many comments on these sorts of websites leave me seriously depressed to realize I am stuck on a planet filled with such cretins.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"All life evolved starting about 3.5 billion years ago according to the earliest fossilized bacterial microbes found to date." Flawed logic. Living organisms may have started evolving at that time, but to say it happened without outside interference is a bit of a stretch. We were not there. Only way you can confirm that it happened spontaneously is with the use of a time machine. Fact remains is that the building blocks of life are not random molecules stuck together. If you DO believe it is, try to deliberately put together a working cell from scratch. It can be done, but with plenty of research, a state of the art lab and thousands of failed experiments. Not to mention billions of dollars of funding. And even then you won't be recreating the original process. Now you expect this to happen by accident? Really?? Scientists may theorize and clutch at straws till they're blue in the face, but it won't change the fact that life cannot exist by luck.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientific atheist say that God does not exist because you cannot prove His exists with any of our known sensory capabilities and that taking it on faith is a lot of non-sense. However are not these same individuals asking the rest of the world to take it by faith that God does not exist? Because, while the scientific method can be applied to confound the teachings of religion, there are no scientific methods or formulas to dispel the existence of a God or other Supreme Beings at all; and “yes” I know his does not ipso facto prove there is a God.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientific atheist also try to dispel the existence of God by showing that the historical account of our physical world, given to us by religion, is false and that ipso facto disprove their Gods. Which is a stand-alone truth, however it still does not disprove that there is no God at all, just that religions view of Supreme Beings are most probably wrong. Additionally you don’t need science to dispel religion, just astute knowledge of history. The most damning evidence to prove that people made up religion can be found in historical record, not science.
We know that there are multiple dimensions. Certainly in one of those dimensions exist beings with superior knowledge and technology, capable of transversing dimensions and all sorts of other amazing feats, that by our standards would be considered miraculous and the work of Supreme Beings, Gods or Aliens in UFOs (ha, ha).
Religion causes people to believe that any Supreme Being is our God, to be feared and worshipped, however if our God is our Father and creator, then are we not whatever type of creature He is also?
I believe that science, in its various forms; points to the existence of Supreme Beings and intelligent design, with Fibonacci numbers being one of the chief examples.
While it certainly is not blasphemy to suppose everything happened by chance and we are not part of some Supreme Beings own scientific experiment, it is most definitely arrogance, fueled by a proud need for self-reliance and selfishness, to suppose beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are not or could never be. Because to do so would inexorably connect us to something greater than ourselves and our fellow man, who in some cases, in error, we consider less than ourselves.
People don't understand true believers. There is logical proof that God exists. But, not everyone can see hear or comprehend it. Belief in God is esoteric. As the bible says. Tho seeing they do not see, tho hearing they do not hear. Matthew 13:14 Then you see articles like this and wonder why people are so stupid.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn a separate study, people who thought critically were more likely to see psychology experiments for the nonsense they are. Critical thinkers were more likely to point out that faith is distinct from "belief" in a creed or partisan platform, that "religion" is a word used by external observers of religious communities and that, moreover, a definition of the word "God" capturing the sense in which the faithful actually use it would more closely approximate the concepts of "pure truth" or "the essence of existence". Therefore an analysis of individual creeds is completely off-base and has nothing to do with religiosity itself and an analytical person intelligent enough to recognize that the existence of God (with a capital "G") is a truism would also have attempted to analyze the nature of that God. If they were not as lazy thinkers as materialists, they might even read Job, the Bhagavad Gita, the Gospels, King Lear or any of a host of literary works which probe deeply into the nature of Existence, aka God.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBTW, the SA article made claims about "analytical thinking". It would appear that they did not mention "critical thinking" because such thinking would tear down their thesis from the premises with which they started.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this