Losing Your Religion: Analytic Thinking Can Undermine Belief (Scientific American)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-04-2012, 11:01 PM
Losing Your Religion: Analytic Thinking Can Undermine Belief (Scientific American)
Always nice hear about these type of experiments/studies from respected journals like Scientific American:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...ine-belief


I can attest to the fact that even though I applied skepticism in various aspects of my life, I didn't get over my fundamental religious upbringing until I was able to apply some serious skepticism and critical thinking to that particular mental compartment of mine.

Join the Logic Speaks Community

I am the unconverted
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like lightninlives's post
26-04-2012, 11:26 PM
RE: Losing Your Religion: Analytic Thinking Can Undermine Belief (Scientific American)
I always knew the statue 'the thinker' was an evil idol statue of the devil, swaying good believers in the wrong direction! Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes LadyJane's post
27-04-2012, 12:30 AM
RE: Losing Your Religion: Analytic Thinking Can Undermine Belief (Scientific American)
(26-04-2012 11:26 PM)LadyJane Wrote:  I always knew the statue 'the thinker' was an evil idol statue of the devil, swaying good believers in the wrong direction! Tongue

Is that what it does? I always thought it was just a sales prop for a toilet company.

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Erxomai's post
27-04-2012, 02:35 AM
 
RE: Losing Your Religion: Analytic Thinking Can Undermine Belief (Scientific American)
I discuss this in my blog, so I won't go over it too much here except to say there's nothing in the research that wasn't already known for about 2000 years.
Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2012, 03:20 AM (This post was last modified: 27-04-2012 03:23 AM by LadyJane.)
RE: Losing Your Religion: Analytic Thinking Can Undermine Belief (Scientific American)
(27-04-2012 02:35 AM)Egor Wrote:  I discuss this in my blog, so I won't go over it too much here except to say there's nothing in the research that wasn't already known for about 2000 years.
Of course the news that when you think about things annalitically you realize, rationally, that belief is bull is not new news. It's the measured statistical proof the article is hoping to illustrate that is the news. Another blog plug?


(27-04-2012 12:30 AM)Erxomai Wrote:  
(26-04-2012 11:26 PM)LadyJane Wrote:  I always knew the statue 'the thinker' was an evil idol statue of the devil, swaying good believers in the wrong direction! Tongue

Is that what it does? I always thought it was just a sales prop for a toilet company.
Rightfully! I mean come one, isn't that some of the best thinking time? I bet that's when world leaders come up with the most brilliant plans.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like LadyJane's post
27-04-2012, 09:04 AM
RE: Losing Your Religion: Analytic Thinking Can Undermine Belief (Scientific American)
(27-04-2012 02:35 AM)Egor Wrote:  I discuss this in my blog, so I won't go over it too much here except to say there's nothing in the research that wasn't already known for about 2000 years.
Let's be clear about one thing. There's a difference between what you're claiming as "known for about 2000 years" and the actual knowledge gleamed by legitimate scientific inquiry.

The first kind is basically opinion/belief masquerading as knowledge while the second can truly be defined as knowledge because it can be falsified, reviewed by peers, replicated, etc.

And if by chance, it can't be replicated or is contradicted by future experimental studies, then it will be abandoned and new experiments, data, and hypothesis will be developed. That's what makes science so different from philosophy, religion, and superstitious doctrine. And that's why it works so damn well.

Join the Logic Speaks Community

I am the unconverted
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like lightninlives's post
27-04-2012, 11:30 AM
 
RE: Losing Your Religion: Analytic Thinking Can Undermine Belief (Scientific American)
(27-04-2012 09:04 AM)lightninlives Wrote:  And if by chance, it can't be replicated or is contradicted by future experimental studies, then it will be abandoned and new experiments, data, and hypothesis will be developed. That's what makes science so different from philosophy, religion, and superstitious doctrine. And that's why it works so damn well.

I wonder exacty what do you mean by "science." You know, a lot of what we call science is really only a system of classification. A lot more is really the feild of engineering. The scientific method, if that's what you're referring to is used by everyone. For instance:

Tide seems to work better than Gain
I will wash three loads using Tide and three using Gain and compare results.
My results show that there is no real difference.
Therefore, I can forget my theory that Tide is better than Gain.

But that is a very limited way of gaining knowledge. It can only be used if an experiment can be set up. A vast amount of human knowledge and understanding does not lend itself to the scientific method. Atheists embrace "Science" because it is safer. Unlike theism, if atheism suffers even one blow, it falls down like a house of cards. So you see it's not that science is superior. That would be like saying a hammer is preferable to a screwdriver. Rather, for an atheist, science is safer.
Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2012, 12:51 PM
RE: Losing Your Religion: Analytic Thinking Can Undermine Belief (Scientific American)
(27-04-2012 11:30 AM)Egor Wrote:  
(27-04-2012 09:04 AM)lightninlives Wrote:  And if by chance, it can't be replicated or is contradicted by future experimental studies, then it will be abandoned and new experiments, data, and hypothesis will be developed. That's what makes science so different from philosophy, religion, and superstitious doctrine. And that's why it works so damn well.

I wonder exacty what do you mean by "science." You know, a lot of what we call science is really only a system of classification. A lot more is really the feild of engineering. The scientific method, if that's what you're referring to is used by everyone. For instance:

Tide seems to work better than Gain
I will wash three loads using Tide and three using Gain and compare results.
My results show that there is no real difference.
Therefore, I can forget my theory that Tide is better than Gain.

But that is a very limited way of gaining knowledge. It can only be used if an experiment can be set up. A vast amount of human knowledge and understanding does not lend itself to the scientific method. Atheists embrace "Science" because it is safer. Unlike theism, if atheism suffers even one blow, it falls down like a house of cards. So you see it's not that science is superior. That would be like saying a hammer is preferable to a screwdriver. Rather, for an atheist, science is safer.
What you just described as the scientific method (e.g. testing tide vs gain) isn't even close to the scientific method. In order for it to truly qualify you would need to publish your results (e.g. your experimental methodology and the date set of results). Then you would need to allow peers to attempt to audit your methodology to look for potential issues like confirmation bias, statistical issues, etc. The peers would also need to replicate your results to a high degree of statistical significance.

Then and only then, would you be participating in the scientific method of inquiry.

Also, you made a fairly ballsy, and dare I say baseless, assertion (e.g. "
that [the scientific method] is a very limited way of gaining knowledge.") and so in order for me to accept it I would need for you to provide a rather copious amount of examples that point to a better method of gaining knowledge. Because the evidence that is available to us in 2012 points to the scientific method as the method of choice for virtually every legitimate field of knowledge we have (medicine, engineering, computer science, history, genetics, biology, neurology, astronomy, sociology, geology, etc. and so on and so forth).

But I think my favorite line was regarding science was, "A vast amount of human knowledge and understanding does not lend itself to the scientific method." Once again, please provide me with some examples so that we can address them in an open forum and figure out whether or not they actually hold any water whatsoever. I suspect that most if not all of them will end up amounting to subjective opinion or belief, not objective and falsifiable knowledge or understanding. The few that will hold will likely be based on the scientific method of inquiry.

Incidentally, the word falsifiable is key, because any idea or assertion that is not falsifiable (e.g. subject to empirical measurement, verification, and replication) cannot be distinguished from pure fantasy or delusion.

Which leads me to the addressing of your final set of assertions regarding atheism:
"Atheists embrace "Science" because it is safer. Unlike theism, if atheism suffers even one blow, it falls down like a house of cards. So you see it's not that science is superior. That would be like saying a hammer is preferable to a screwdriver. Rather, for an atheist, science is safer."

Let's be clear here. I am a skeptic first and foremost and that critical thinking skill is the basis for my atheistic position. Skepticism is also a key ingredient in the scientific method of inquiry because it helps prevent things like confirmation bias that can quickly cloud the mind and lead people to stray into the clouds of delusion.

I embrace science because it works. In other words, it is the only known method of gaining any true knowledge or understanding about how things work and the nature of objective reality. And unlike any and all religious and superstitious doctrines, it lends itself to self-correction and refinement , which is something that's simply impossible with religious doctrine due to it's fixed nature (though heaven knows that religious leaders have tried to reinterpret their sacred texts over the centuries in order to try and make them seem like they're keeping up with progress in real human knowledge that is brought about through science and technology).

You made some weird assertion about how "Unlike theism, if atheism suffers even one blow, it falls down like a house of cards." This is deliciously ironic for two reasons:
1) you misunderstand what atheism actually means for me and many others because you fail to realize that if I were confronted with legitimate evidence for the existence of god, I would gladly change my stance. In fact, I would likely welcome such news. However, the fact of the matter is that the necessary evidence doesn't exist, not just for the concept of god but for any of the countless anthropomorphic god concepts that liter human consciousness (Jesus, Yahweh, Rasta, Allah, etc.).
2) your statement betrays the weakness of your present stance. See unlike me and most skeptics, your belief is based on faith and is therefore necessarily unfalsifiable. Therefore, there is literally no amount of evidence that will get you to change your stance. So if evidence does cause my house of cards to tumble, I'll gladly move on and form a new belief. Whereas your current approach prevents you from even noticing or accepting that your house of cards already fell down ions ago.

In order for you to notice, you will literally have to spend a lot of time in deep introspection, literally unlearning the superstitious underpinnings of your doctrine and adopting the critical thinking skills need to leave religion behind (reminder: that was the point of the study that served as the basis for this thread in the first place).

I don't expect you to budge an inch on your stance at this point in time, but if you ever do find yourself heading down this path I have laid out, don't hesitate to ping me. I strive to promote the idea of compassionate atheism and so I know where you're at (because I've been there too) and I'm here to help and support if need be.

Cheers!

Join the Logic Speaks Community

I am the unconverted
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like lightninlives's post
27-04-2012, 01:58 PM
 
RE: Losing Your Religion: Analytic Thinking Can Undermine Belief (Scientific American)
(27-04-2012 12:51 PM)lightninlives Wrote:  What you just described as the scientific method (e.g. testing tide vs gain) isn't even close to the scientific method. In order for it to truly qualify you would need to publish your results (e.g. your experimental methodology and the date set of results). Then you would need to allow peers to attempt to audit your methodology to look for potential issues like confirmation bias, statistical issues, etc. The peers would also need to replicate your results to a high degree of statistical significance.

No, that's the peer review process, which is part of the "profession" of science.

Here: http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/N...node6.html


Quote:Then and only then, would you be participating in the scientific method of inquiry.

Also, you made a fairly ballsy, and dare I say baseless, assertion (e.g. "
that [the scientific method] is a very limited way of gaining knowledge.") and so in order for me to accept it I would need for you to provide a rather copious amount of examples that point to a better method of gaining knowledge. Because the evidence that is available to us in 2012 points to the scientific method as the method of choice for virtually every legitimate field of knowledge we have (medicine, engineering, computer science, history, genetics, biology, neurology, astronomy, sociology, geology, etc. and so on and so forth).

Logic
Artistic expression
Mahtematics
Revelation
Precognition
et. al.

But your wild card will be "every legitimate field of knowledge " And everyone knows atheists shove their head in the sand when it comes to anything they can't answer from an atheistic perspective.

Quote:But I think my favorite line was regarding science was, "A vast amount of human knowledge and understanding does not lend itself to the scientific method." Once again, please provide me with some examples

Law
Theology
Mathematics
The interpretation of art
Music
Counseling Psychology and psychoanalysis
Psi
et. al.

Quote:so that we can address them in an open forum and figure out whether or not they actually hold any water whatsoever. I suspect that most if not all of them will end up amounting to subjective opinion or belief, not objective and falsifiable knowledge or understanding.

Well then you're biased. You might want to take your arm from around science now--the photo op is over.

No further questions, Your Honor.
Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2012, 02:47 PM
RE: Losing Your Religion: Analytic Thinking Can Undermine Belief (Scientific American)
About as damning a conclusion as you can get:

"Such a gap is large enough to indicate a mild believer is responding as a
mild nonbeliever—all from being visually reminded of the human capacity
to think."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Superluminal's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: