Thinking analytically reduces religious belief:

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-04-analytic-decrease-religious-belief.html

So whatever you do, RJ Hinds, Dasa, Jaywill, and company, don't go in for actual thinking analytically. It will be detrimental to your religious health.

Originally posted by sonhouse
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-04-analytic-decrease-religious-belief.html

So whatever you do, RJ Hinds, Dasa, Jaywill, and company, don't go in for actual thinking analytically. It will be detrimental to your religious health.

sooo wrong, philosophy and spirituality are not one and the same thing, another FAIL.
When will you zoobs learn.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sooo wrong, philosophy and spirituality are not one and the same thing, another FAIL.
When will you zoobs learn.

You mean the part where you start thinking analytically, like really applying your reasoning powers to such concepts as original sin, virgin mary, feeding 10,000 with one loaf of bread, etc.? Reading such lines in the bible as a man is worth 50 shekels and a woman 35? You never apply critical thinking to such concepts? No, of course not, you are blinded by your faith, your faith specifically PRECLUDES such critical thinking and BS detection.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sooo wrong, philosophy and spirituality are not one and the same thing, another FAIL.
When will you zoobs learn.

Who said it was?

Originally posted by sonhouse
You mean the part where you start thinking analytically, like really applying your reasoning powers to such concepts as original sin, virgin mary, feeding 10,000 with one loaf of bread, etc.? Reading such lines in the bible as a man is worth 50 shekels and a woman 35? You never apply critical thinking to such concepts? No, of course not, you are blinded by your faith, your faith specifically PRECLUDES such critical thinking and BS detection.

no it doesn't, spirituality and philosophy are not the same thing, another epic fail from
the fallacy factory!

Originally posted by biffo konker
Who said it was?

The imaginary person robbie is arguing against.

Originally posted by biffo konker
Who said it was?

his assertion was that because of adherence to a specific religious disposition one is
unable to think critically or ones ability is diminished, which assumes that critical
thinking must have some correlation to spirituality which precludes the adherent from
engaging in the former or diminishes his ability to do so. Why is it nonsense? because
critical thinking (philosophy) and spirituality are not one and the same thing. My
assertion. If there is no correlation then the statement is still nonsense for he is
describing a process which has nothing to do with the other like saying that because i
dont use water in my whiskey my ability to make flapjacks is diminished.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
his assertion was that because of adherence to a specific religious disposition one is
unable to think critically or ones ability is diminished, which assumes that critical
thinking must have some correlation to spirituality which precludes the adherent from
engaging in the former or diminishes his ability to do so. Why is it nonsense? because ...[text shortened]... saying that because i
dont use water in my whiskey my ability to make flapjacks is diminished.

Actually the article he linked said nothing of the sort and so you are as ever arguing against
an imaginary person making nonsense arguments instead of dealing the the actual arguments
real people are making.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Actually the article he linked said nothing of the sort and so you are as ever arguing against
an imaginary person making nonsense arguments instead of dealing the the actual arguments
real people are making.

i am not an imaginary person, i put forth the proposition, he assumes that there is a
correlation, between a religious disposition and ones ability to reason, now shown to be
nonsense as they are not parts of the same function, are they. If they are not part of
the same function his statement is nonsense for no correlation exists, does it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i am not an imaginary person, i put forth the proposition, he assumes that there is a
correlation, between a religious disposition and ones ability to reason, now shown to be
nonsense as they are not parts of the same function, are they.

I wonder sometimes if you ever actually read what anyone else says.

I said you were arguing AGAINST an imaginary person I did not say that you were an
imaginary person.

And again that is not at all what he was saying.

Read the linked article and have a look at what the study actually says because it is
much more interesting than whatever you are imagining it says.

Originally posted by sonhouse
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-04-analytic-decrease-religious-belief.html

So whatever you do, RJ Hinds, Dasa, Jaywill, and company, don't go in for actual thinking analytically. It will be detrimental to your religious health.

Instead of acknowledging that the observer universe is all that is the case, the theologian insists that all that is the case is his God (he read it in his Holy Book). “Analysis” for the theologian starts from this exact blind belief and it goes like this:

Instead of acknowledging that the observer universe is the totality of facts and not of things, the theologian insists that the observer universe is just one of the things his God created;

Instead of acknowledging that the observer universe is determined by the facts, and by their being all the facts, the theologian insists that the observer universe is determined by his God’s will and by his being all the facts;

Instead of acknowledging that the totality of facts determines what is the case, and also whatever is not the case, the theologian will insist that the case is to come in unison with God and that his religious blind beliefs are the sole facts;
etc etc.


Methinks analysis without evidence is pure noise, so to me theology is the mother of the noise (its father is fear)
😵

Originally posted by googlefudge
I wonder sometimes if you ever actually read what anyone else says.

I said you were arguing AGAINST an imaginary person I did not say that you were an
imaginary person.

And again that is not at all what he was saying.

Read the linked article and have a look at what the study actually says because it is
much more interesting than whatever you are imagining it says.

oh dear oh dear, I dont care who you think is imaginary or not, I care even less for
what you find interesting, my statement is sound, no correlation, no diminishing of ones
ability to reason.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
oh dear oh dear, I dont care who you think is imaginary or not, I care even less for
what you find interesting, my statement is sound, no correlation, no diminishing of ones
ability to reason.

The article linked says this

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-04-analytic-decrease-religious-belief.html

... A new University of British Columbia study finds that analytic thinking can decrease religious belief,
even in devout believers.

The study, published today in the journal Science, finds that thinking analytically increases disbelief among
believers and skeptics alike, shedding important new light on the psychology of religious belief.

"Our goal was to explore the fundamental question of why people believe in a God to different degrees,"
says lead author Will Gervais, a PhD student in UBC's Dept. of Psychology. "A combination of complex factors
influence matters of personal spirituality, and these new findings suggest that the cognitive system related
to analytic thoughts is one factor that can influence disbelief."

Researchers used problem-solving tasks and subtle experimental priming – including showing participants
Rodin's sculpture The Thinker or asking participants to complete questionnaires in hard-to-read fonts – to
successfully produce "analytic" thinking. The researchers, who assessed participants' belief levels using a
variety of self-reported measures, found that religious belief decreased when participants engaged in analytic
tasks, compared to participants who engaged in tasks that did not involve analytic thinking.

The findings, Gervais says, are based on a longstanding human psychology model of two distinct, but related
cognitive systems to process information: an "intuitive" system that relies on mental shortcuts to yield fast and
efficient responses, and a more "analytic" system that yields more deliberate, reasoned responses.

"Our study builds on previous research that links religious beliefs to 'intuitive' thinking," says study co-author
and Associate Prof. Ara Norenzayan, UBC Dept. of Psychology. "Our findings suggest that activating the 'analytic'
cognitive system in the brain can undermine the 'intuitive' support for religious belief, at least temporarily."

The study involved more than 650 participants in the U.S. and Canada. Gervais says future studies will explore
whether the increase in religious disbelief is temporary or long-lasting, and how the findings apply to non-Western
cultures.

Recent figures suggest that the majority of the world's population believes in a God, however atheists and
agnostics number in the hundreds of millions, says Norenzayan, a co-director of UBC's Centre for Human Evolution,
Cognition and Culture. Religious convictions are shaped by psychological and cultural factors and fluctuate across
time and situations, he says. ...

To which you responded by saying

sooo wrong, philosophy and spirituality are not one and the same thing, another FAIL.
When will you zoobs learn.

Nowhere does sonhouse or this article say anything of the sort, or even imply anything of the sort.

You are arguing against something that was never said.

A strawman argument in other words.

You are arguing against the arguments of some imaginary person apparently only you can hear.

You are not arguing against what anyone has actually said in this thread.



EDIT:

Also there is for anyone interested a fascinating talk by Rebecca Watson on intuition (among other things) here...

YouTube

Originally posted by sonhouse
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-04-analytic-decrease-religious-belief.html

So whatever you do, RJ Hinds, Dasa, Jaywill, and company, don't go in for actual thinking analytically. It will be detrimental to your religious health.

This is the abstract from the actual report in Science:

Scientific interest in the cognitive underpinnings of religious belief has grown in recent years. However, to date, little experimental research has focused on the cognitive processes that may promote religious disbelief. The present studies apply a dual-process model of cognitive processing to this problem, testing the hypothesis that analytic processing promotes religious disbelief. Individual differences in the tendency to analytically override initially flawed intuitions in reasoning were associated with increased religious disbelief. Four additional experiments provided evidence of causation, as subtle manipulations known to trigger analytic processing also encouraged religious disbelief. Combined, these studies indicate that analytic processing is one factor (presumably among several) that promotes religious disbelief. Although these findings do not speak directly to conversations about the inherent rationality, value, or truth of religious beliefs, they illuminate one cognitive factor that may influence such discussions.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6080/493.abstract

Repeating the last sentence: "Although these findings do not speak directly to conversations about the inherent rationality, value, or truth of religious beliefs, they illuminate one cognitive factor that may influence such discussions."

But that ain't gonna stop us, is it?

Originally posted by sonhouse
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-04-analytic-decrease-religious-belief.html

So whatever you do, RJ Hinds, Dasa, Jaywill, and company, don't go in for actual thinking analytically. It will be detrimental to your religious health.

Researchers used problem-solving tasks and subtle experimental priming – including showing participants Rodin's sculpture The Thinker or asking participants to complete questionnaires in hard-to-read fonts – to successfully produce "analytic" thinking.

Having to answer a questionnaire given in a bad font would increase irritation and annoyance as well. Not surprising that skepticism in all subjects increased when they did this.