sciencemag.org/content/336/6080/493.
I know, shocker!
Btw, both correlation and causation were found.
Analytical thinking promotes chaos.
Given any two deeply analytical thinkers, especially if they are not geniuses, they will argue. And even though they agree on most issues, they will not focus upon what they agree upon as much as what they disagree upon and thus never unite into a cohesive, harmonious grouping. Sheeple do not have that problem.
vol–I can’t read the entire article without a subscription, and I’m not willing to subscribe. However, the abstract of the article comes as no shocker to me. Given what physics has told us, it comes as no surprise that people are creating their own, individual, internal religions–or religious thoughts. That needn’t, however, lead to atheism; rather, it can lead to a skepticism about the outward trappings of any established religious group–and how those trappings are efficacious. I see it as part of the evolution of religion.
I can’t get in to read the full article, but have just read the abstract. From the abstract I don’t know precisely what they mean. IOW, for example, we don’t know the quality of the analytic processing or what purpose it is serving. If this analytic processing mean mental, language based reasoning, shifting to this kind of activity breaks off all kinds of experiences. In empirical terms, it can keep out information, as can any habitual process. Habitual analytic processing can interfere with all sorts of kinds of performance, not thinking here of religion in particular, but sports, art, public speaking, managing employees, intimacy, whatever.
I don’t think this is necessarily the case, but it can be the case. To me analytic thinking reduces intimacy, of any kind. In a worst case scenario a person focuses, analytically, on the problem other minds, and can never fully trust another human exists, let alone that animals are conscious or that anything, slightly more controversial for such a person, would be. It cuts off closeness to the universe, whatever that is.
Didnt even bother to read the half article. Unfortunately the premise is flawed as there is a long, long history of analetic thinkers in the catholic church.
The attempts of scientist to solve theological questions tend to come off half baked as its usually less the evidence and more the need to justify a lifestyle change. I’ve studied the ‘death of god’ phenomena in several different ancient to modern civilizations… they follow the same, similar trends. Civilization moves in cycles of open theism… how the concept of god is generated in individuals on a personality basis and how society accepts it… the friction towards acceptance and the gradual mutations and dialectic exchange is a well trodded and predictible story.
Scientist need to focus more on science and less on justifying their life choices with psuedoscience. This us how Scientism is generated. All that will come out of this in the long term is a nee conception of thr godhead once the popularity of atheism dies down… which it is, thanks to non breeders.
Seriously?
They didn’t say all analytic thinkers were atheists. They said analytic thinking promotes disbelief.
Don’t you understand simple logic?
The people on this forum…geez
I think the point is that if belief in god is rational as many theists claim and believe it to be, then why is it that when we increase rationality, religious belief decreases?
Does that happen? Does increased rationality actually decrease religious belief?
I read a book (which is stored in the attic due to bookshelf overflow, so I can’t give you either the title or the author) written by a medical doctor explaining the physical torture Jesus went through before and during the crucifixion. There’s also a gif on YouTube–also by a medical doctor. While neither attest to the divinity of Jesus, they’re both ‘rational’ explanations of physical torture. Which raises the question of the quality of rationality. To me, being a rational thinker means applying logic to your thoughts. But being logical and being rational both start with assumptions, don’t they? And the assumptions are most often deeply personal and, therefore, biased. Is anyone really capable of complete rationality?
What I’m saying is that, to me, it’s impossible to completely divorce yourself from everything that’s led you to basic, instinctive, intuited, feeling–it’s simply too embedded in your mind. IOW, if you’ve been enculturated in a family and a society that holds a belief in some sort of god, it’s going to be impossible to totally rid yourself of the seeds of that belief.
Didn’t I just showed you a study that demonstrates so?!?
I do not understand what the physical torture that Jesus supposedly went trough, has to do with the topic at hand. But since you brought it up, there is a LOT of controversy regarding the description of said event. Supposedly your hands would not be able to support the weigh of your body.
This sounds like a cop out. If you aspire to “philosophy” in any way, you need to work hard to root out any preconceived notions you might hold. Yes, there will always be something we miss, but that is no excuse to throw our hands in the air and say “it’s too embedded” - sounds like you’re just rationalizing those old, comforting prejudices…
And the results of the research aren’t surprising:
“Individual differences in the tendency to analytically override initially flawed intuitions in reasoning were associated with increased religious disbelief.”
That’s exactly what rationality should be about - being able to discard pre-existing assumptions when presented with evidence to the contrary. In other words, changing your world-view to fit the empirical data, not vice versa.
In fact, I would venture to say that the history of Western Philosophy (until the 18th or 19th century) has essentially been the history of Christian Apologetics. Christians realized early on that belief should be rational and they have labored for the better part of two millenia trying to get their religious foot to fit a rational shoe. And they have failed spectacularly - essentially all arguments for the existence of God have long since been put to rest by philosophers and science continues to chip away at any foundation religion has left to stand on…
I told you, I couldn’t read the article without a subscription–nor could Moreno–so, no, you haven’t ‘shown’ us the study. And I think I’ve kept to the topic at hand in raising the question on the ‘quality’ of rational thinking: is it purposive/instrumental or is it value/belief-oriented? In either case, rationality begins with assumptions, imm–which is why I don’t argue either religion or politics. No one, once they’ve reached a given position on either subject, will be willing to even listen to counter arguments. Why waste your time ](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
?
The depictions of the crucifixion of Jesus most often show the palms pierced by the nails. This goes against both prophecy and anatomy. The prophecy was that none of the Messiah’s bones would be broken. Stay calm, vol, I’m simply repeating what’s in the Bible. The skeletal anatomy shows that bones would be broken when nails pierce either the hands or the feet–so it’s assumed by Biblical scholars that the nails used in the crucifixion were placed between the radius and the ulna just above the wrist and between the tibia and fibula just above the ankle. DaVinci studied anatomy; I don’t know of any other painters back then that did.
Don’t worry, though. After I’ve replied to buffalo–out of courtesy rather than for an argument–I probably won’t add to this thread. 
It would be a cop-out only if I had said, “It’s impossible for me to completely divorce myself…” I didn’t say that. I used a universal pronoun–‘you.’ And when I said “…to me…”, I meant, ‘imo.’ Even you said there’d “…always be something we miss…”
Do you ascribe to the BBT? There’s no empirical data to either prove or disprove it. I happen to think it’s, so far, the most workable theory about the creation of both time and the universe arrived at–again, so far. Anyway, I’ve responded to you and, as I told volchok, I probably won’t respond to this thread again.
Are you a genius?
How do you define genius?
Is one born into it? Or does one become a genius?
If the latter, is it possible that everyone could become a genius?
What is an argument? If it’s a proposition, would a genius have no interest to persuade another genius? Is a genius aware of all facets of life? If so, and people become geniuses, why wouldn’t they make geniuses of all? Once the momentum is started, could it be so difficult?
Is genius relative? If so, is it not chaos that the genius grows out of?
If a genius knows all, where does chaos come into the equation? It’s promoted but not sustained?
If a genius seeks subjective harmony, are they denying the insight that provided said harmony?
I needs my clarifications, Pal.
Well, if you do agree that the BBT is plausible, you owe it to yourself to gain some familiarity with the empirical data that supports it - and at present the weight of this evidence has become essentially insurmountable. Here’s a good starting point:
Lawrence M. Krauss, “A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing”, Free Press (January 10, 2012)
from Amazon amazon.com/Universe-Nothing- … 861&sr=1-1
Religion —> Analytic Thinking —> Religion
Told to accept ‘reality’ —> Why? ----> I give up (?).
Or
Told to accept ‘reality’ —> Why? —> ???
“Quality” of rational thinking?!?
Wtf does that even mean?
Anyway here’s the study: mediafire.com/view/?g6w9zm9z4i19pu6
Knock yourself out.
Religion —> Inability to accept reality —> Poor analytic thinking —> Religion