85 replies to this topic

[Aryana]

Jebreil, on 01 May 2012 - 11:32 AM, said:

Faith might be trusting the intuition that there is more to the world than living then dying - that there is a morality at work in the very fabric of the world. It's an intuition growing from dissatisfaction with the status quo.

This quote (which I find rather profound) got me thinking about an article I read recently about analytic vs intuitive cognitive processes. What do people think?

Here's the abstract:

Quote

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.

Although I'm very skeptical about the premise and find their methodology slightly ridiculous, if it does have any basis it may tie in with what I've been pondering recently; do certain traits predispose us to 'believe'?

I would find it very hard however, to accept that religiosity has no basis in analytical thought. Also, if certain psychological/cognitive faculties are more inducive to religious faith, what would that mean for the idea of a just God? Would people who don't have faith due to an inherent inability be judged differently? For me it is God's justice that makes him worthy of worship more than anything else, in fact it's one of the main reasons I chose Shia Islam.

I realise this is all over the place, but it's a genuine conflict I've been having so I'd be very interested to hear what other people think, both about the study and the questions I've outlined.

[Ruq]

How are you defining an intuitive cognitive process?

Intuition, by my understanding, is the sub-conscious sponge that soaks up the details of our existence that the conscious often ignores or discards as not deserving of attention. The subonscious is there fore aware of lots of subtle patterns that the conscious is not and so gives us that 'intuitive' feeling: when we know something or feel something, but dont know how or why. I read an interesting book about it called 'decisive moment'. Made a lot of sense.

[Aryana]

Someone gave me that book as a birthday present last year. I should really read it.

I'm going by the definitions the authors use in the paper:

Quote

According to dual-process theories of human thinking, there are two distinct but interacting systems for information processing. One (System 1) relies upon frugal heuristics yielding intuitive responses, while the other (System 2) relies upon deliberative analytic processing. Although both systems can at times run in parallel, System 2 often overrides the input of system 1 when analytic tendencies are activated and cognitive resources are available. Dual-process theories have been successfully applied to diverse domains and phenomena across a wide range of fields.

Lehrer seems to be describing the same concept. (Correct me if I'm wrong, I've only done some very cursory reading on the subject.)

[gogiison2]

I don't understand how the author ties together analytic processing with promoting religious disbelief. I think the premise of the analyzer has to be taken into consideration, otherwise it can lead to partial conclusions, via paradigm "paralysis," as some call it.

[Aryana]

gogiison2, on 01 May 2012 - 03:10 PM, said:

I don't understand how the author ties together analytic processing with promoting religious disbelief. I think the premise of the analyzer has to be taken into consideration, otherwise it can lead to partial conclusions, via paradigm "paralysis," as some call it.

I agree and to be honest I find the whole experiment rather facetious, but it got me thinking about the things I went on a long ramble about. I find the way they've drawn their conclusions quite baffling.

[iDevonian]

Aryana, on 01 May 2012 - 04:22 PM, said:

I agree and to be honest I find the whole experiment rather facetious, but it got me thinking about the things I went on a long ramble about. I find the way they've drawn their conclusions quite baffling.

May I ask, how exactly they performed the experiment?

[Aryana]

iDevonian, on 01 May 2012 - 05:42 PM, said:

May I ask, how exactly they performed the experiment?

I linked to the report in the OP, but here it is again.

EDIT: Sorry I forgot that the link in the OP may not be accessible to everyone, this one should work for now.

Edited by Aryana, 01 May 2012 - 06:09 PM.

[iDevonian]

Aryana, on 01 May 2012 - 05:50 PM, said:

I linked to the report in the OP, but here it is again.

Not all of us are subscribed to AAAS .

Is there another place where we can read the actual paper?

What you have here is an abstract, and it doesnt really tell us about the experiment. So im not sure if you are subscribed and have read it, or perhaps you are just referring to the abstract when you called the entire experiment facetious. Sorry for poking at you.

As for the abstract though, I agree with what they are proposing and I as well as others have been saying it for years. Not to be offensive to religious people and I hope I dont sound too arrogant, but I believe that, especially amongst very conservative fundamentalists, there is a lack of analytical and/or critical thought in how they do things.

I think a major issue with many people is that they dont know how to think. They dont know how to criticize themselves, nor analyze their thoughts using this critique. But I wouldnt say that about all religious people of course, mostly just the very conservative ones.  You know, the minority who are often considered to be lunatics.

And this is a major part of science.  Its not all about going outside and cutting things open and breaking them apart and making up wild hypotheses.  Often its about learning how to criticize yourself and others. Thats basically what scientists do, we say "hey, you arent thinking about this correctly, here is why". And in order to do that, you have to practice and you have to learn how to be analytical of the physical sciences.  But if a person hangs out in a church all the time, they wont really be bothered to break down their own ideas because theyre too teaching others about how 2 pairs of each animal stuffed themselves on a boat and survived the global flood. Which clearly they didnt analyze before hand, maybe because they were children when they were taught it, or perhaps they simply dont know how.

Edited by iDevonian, 01 May 2012 - 06:18 PM.

[Aryana]

iDevonian, on 01 May 2012 - 06:01 PM, said:

Not all of us are subscribed to AAAS .

Completely forgot that it may not be accessible to everyone, I do apologise! My fault entirely.

This is rather naughty but I shared it on mediafire, so you should be able to find it here.

Edited by Aryana, 01 May 2012 - 06:13 PM.

[iDevonian]

Aryana, on 01 May 2012 - 06:13 PM, said:

Completely forgot that it may not be accessible to everyone, I do apologise! My fault entirely.

This is rather naughty but I shared it on mediafire, so you should be able to find it here.

ty, yay free research paper!

Ya, this sounds about right.  Intuitive assumptions vs time staking criticism. Both are necessary in life, but when to use which may affect your religious beliefs. Thats what it sounds like they are getting at.

Ok, I finished reading through it.  Yea, it sounds fine to me.  I think their ideas are well presented, they made a point while still recognizing that their findings arent some sort of overriding law. It is a well thought out and written paper.  Not that I would expect less from something published in science.

So about that subscription you have .

iDevonian eyeballs some research papers on paleontology that he cannot read*

Edited by iDevonian, 01 May 2012 - 06:43 PM.

[Aryana]

iDevonian, on 01 May 2012 - 06:01 PM, said:

As for the abstract though, I agree with what they are proposing and I as well as others have been saying it for years. Not to be offensive to religious people and I hope I dont sound too arrogant, but I believe that, especially amongst very conservative fundamentalists, there is a lack of analytical and/or critical thought in how they do things.

I think a major issue with many people is that they dont know how to think. They dont know how to criticize themselves, nor analyze their thoughts using this critique. But I wouldnt say that about all religious people of course, mostly just the very conservative ones.  You know, the minority who are often considered to be lunatics.

And this is a major part of science.  Its not all about going outside and cutting things open and breaking them apart and making up wild hypotheses.  Often its about learning how to criticize yourself and others. Thats basically what scientists do, we say "hey, you arent thinking about this correctly, here is why". And in order to do that, you have to practice and you have to learn how to be analytical of the physical sciences.  But if a person hangs out in a church all the time, they wont really be bothered to break down their own ideas because theyre too teaching others about how 2 pairs of each animal stuffed themselves on a boat and survived the global flood. Which clearly they didnt analyze before hand, maybe because they were children when they were taught it, or perhaps they simply dont know how.

I do agree with your points, but I think they're valid about a dogmatic, uncritical approach to any kind of ideology or philosophy. One can be religious and neither of those things, or guilty of them while being completely non-religious. It could well be that analytical thinking is linked to a decrease in fundamentalism or dogmatism, but to extend that to a generalization of religious faith doesn't really make sense. I may well be wrong however, and I'm certainly open to being corrected.

(If it weren't so terribly hypocritical given the nature of this thread, I'd point out all those pop-science studies linking low IQ to conservatism and voting Rebuplican in the States.....)

I also find how religious belief is characterised in the experiment, ie 'God', 'Angels' and 'Devil' quite patronising to be honest.

Edited by Aryana, 01 May 2012 - 06:45 PM.

[iDevonian]

Aryana, on 01 May 2012 - 06:44 PM, said:

I do agree with your points, but I think they're valid about a dogmatic, uncritical approach to any kind of ideology or philosophy. One can be religious and neither of those things, or guilty of them while being completely non-religious. It could well be that analytical thinking is linked to a decrease in fundamentalism or dogmatism, but to extend that to a generalization of religious faith doesn't really make sense. I may well be wrong however, and I'm certainly open to being corrected.

(If it weren't so terribly hypocritical given the nature of this thread, I'd point out all those pop-science studies linking low IQ to conservatism and voting Rebuplican in the States.....)

I also find how religious belief is characterised in the experiment, ie 'God', 'Angels' and 'Devil' quite patronising to be honest.

haha ya

[Aryana]

iDevonian, on 01 May 2012 - 06:19 PM, said:

Ok, I finished reading through it.  Yea, it sounds fine to me.  I think their ideas are well presented, they made a point while still recognizing that their findings arent some sort of overriding law. It is a well thought out and written paper.  Not that I would expect less from something published in science.

I don't know, I find the way the whole experiment has been framed to be rather sensationalist. But then again a paper showing that analytical thought results in a decrease in 'unquestioned assumptions' (which undoubtedly many people's religious beliefs are) would be stating the obvious and would hardly have had as much publicity. It's the generalisation I have a problem with.

iDevonian, on 01 May 2012 - 06:19 PM, said:

So about that subscription you have .

Just let me know.

Edited by Aryana, 01 May 2012 - 07:04 PM.

[iDevonian]

Aryana, on 01 May 2012 - 07:02 PM, said:

I don't know, I find the way the whole experiment has been framed to be rather sensationalist. But then again a paper showing that analytical thought results in a decrease in 'unquestioned assumptions' (which undoubtedly many people's religious beliefs are) would be stating the obvious and would hardly have had as much publicity. It's the generalisation I have a problem with.



Just let me know.

With a subscription, can you access them all for free?  I wouldnt want to ask you for one if it still costs you.

[Aryana]

iDevonian, on 01 May 2012 - 07:25 PM, said:

With a subscription, can you access them all for free?  I wouldnt want to ask you for one if it still costs you.

Yep, I have access through Uni so it should be fine. Never had to pay for anything so far.

[iDevonian]

Aryana, on 01 May 2012 - 08:27 PM, said:

Yep, I have access through Uni so it should be fine. Never had to pay for anything so far.

My university never had access to science.  Do you have Nature as well by chance?

[Aryana]

iDevonian, on 01 May 2012 - 08:57 PM, said:

My university never had access to science.  Do you have Nature as well by chance?

Yeah the only thing I've ever had a problem with are really obscure journals, everything else has been fine.

[iDevonian]

Aryana, on 01 May 2012 - 09:35 PM, said:

Yeah the only thing I've ever had a problem with are really obscure journals, everything else has been fine.

omg, so lucky.  Alright, ill get back to you then.  You must be going to an awesome university if they provide those.  Granted, I could always order articles independently, but i only had access to certain geologic journals, nothing like Science or Nature.

[Aryana]

iDevonian, on 01 May 2012 - 10:32 PM, said:

omg, so lucky.  Alright, ill get back to you then.  You must be going to an awesome university if they provide those.  Granted, I could always order articles independently, but i only had access to certain geologic journals, nothing like Science or Nature.

I find it strange that any university wouldn't tbh. Now quit derailing my thread! Although I doubt I'm going to get any responses.

[Chaotic Muslem]

https://docs.google....5YNRjMcn4IGgkYA

last i've read is that religious thoughts activates just as same centers as any reasanble thought and thus , all studies been inconclusive

[aliasghark]

Probably unrelated to the main subject, just a random thought (feel free to ignore): in my experience I've found people who have been given laughably distorted descriptions of God (and other subjects in religion in general) and are made to believe in it, they tend to experience a knee-jerk reaction as they grow up and end up swinging all the way to the other extreme (of Atheism).  "If that is supposed to be God, then there is no God"

And then when they eventually mature and are able to work things out by themselves, people realize that different descriptions don't mean the thing being described doesn't exist.  "That weird thing I was told cannot be God, but this makes complete sense"

Logical progression: belief in some objects or people being God --> loss of belief in God completely --> acceptance of the one true God
(in other words: gullibility and lack of independent thought --> free independent thinking begins --> maturity and wisdom (fruits of labor from the struggle to find answers))

[Incognito]

I am too sick and tired of the term 'religion'. It is far too loose for us to make good use of anything.

I have found in my own experience that those who have Muslim backgrounds hold a much greater importance to faith. Whereas you get some who by studying things like physics begin to reject the existence of God whereas every person with a Muslim background who I know has done advanced physics still believes in a God.

[Aryana]

Chaotic Muslem, on 02 May 2012 - 01:01 AM, said:

https://docs.google....5YNRjMcn4IGgkYA

last i've read is that religious thoughts activates just as same centers as any reasanble thought and thus , all studies been inconclusive

Thanks, that looks very interesting, I'm going to read it later and see if it contradicts this study. It seems to be more theoretical than experimental though?

aliasghark, on 02 May 2012 - 01:31 AM, said:

Probably unrelated to the main subject, just a random thought (feel free to ignore): in my experience I've found people who have been given laughably distorted descriptions of God (and other subjects in religion in general) and are made to believe in it, they tend to experience a knee-jerk reaction as they grow up and end up swinging all the way to the other extreme (of Atheism).  "If that is supposed to be God, then there is no God"

And then when they eventually mature and are able to work things out by themselves, people realize that different descriptions don't mean the thing being described doesn't exist.  "That weird thing I was told cannot be God, but this makes complete sense"

Logical progression: belief in some objects or people being God --> loss of belief in God completely --> acceptance of the one true God
(in other words: gullibility and lack of independent thought --> free independent thinking begins --> maturity and wisdom (fruits of labor from the struggle to find answers))

My own journey was something like this, although to my parents credit they gave me an excellent religious upbringing. Well my Dad did anyway. I was just the kind to rebel with no cause in order to make my own mistakes... But again, what if some people are just 'naturally' (I hate that word as it implies a naturalistic fallacy, but for want of a better one) predisposed to a lack of faith? Where do they stand within an Islamic framework?

Incognito, on 02 May 2012 - 02:52 AM, said:

I am too sick and tired of the term 'religion'. It is far too loose for us to make good use of anything.

I have found in my own experience that those who have Muslim backgrounds hold a much greater importance to faith. Whereas you get some who by studying things like physics begin to reject the existence of God whereas every person with a Muslim background who I know has done advanced physics still believes in a God.

I'm going to have to think aloud for a moment so bear with me.

That's an interesting point, but I think it was Ernest Gellner who suggested that out of all the Abrahamic faiths in their traditional (ie not watered down and liberalised) form, Islam was the most compatible the modern world and in particular, modern scientific thought. Could it be our belief in a multi-layered Qur'an in need of tafsir made us less dogmatic about our texts, enabling scientific and religious thought to flourish simultaneously? Or is it the historical lack of a complex religious feudal hierarchy to put down thinkers whom the Catholic Church would have seen as a threat to entrenched interests? If I remember correctly, one of the reasons Gellner posits is the egalitarianism at the heart of Islam, especially in the matters of religious scholarship which makes a single unified mainstream view on certain matters elusive, and as a result, almost impossible to contravene.

If Muslims are more stead-fast in their faith in face of science, could it be because we've never really seen them as two separate entities, but seen one as the extension of the other? Although it could be purely superficial; the pursuit of ilm is one of the most encouraged things in Islam after all which may be why Islamic society has usually never threatened by such.

Any thoughts?

[Chaotic Muslem]

Aryana, on 02 May 2012 - 03:33 AM, said:

Thanks, that looks very interesting, I'm going to read it later and see if it contradicts this study. It seems to be more theoretical than experimental though?



My own journey was something like this, although to my parents credit they gave me an excellent religious upbringing. Well my Dad did anyway. I was just the kind to rebel with no cause in order to make my own mistakes... But again, what if some people are just 'naturally' (I hate that word as it implies a naturalistic fallacy, but for want of a better one) predisposed to a lack of faith? Where do they stand within an Islamic framework?



I'm going to have to think aloud for a moment so bear with me.

That's an interesting point, but I think it was Ernest Gellner who suggested that out of all the Abrahamic faiths in their traditional (ie not watered down and liberalised) form, Islam was the most compatible the modern world and in particular, modern scientific thought. Could it be our belief in a multi-layered Qur'an in need of tafsir made us less dogmatic about our texts, enabling scientific and religious thought to flourish simultaneously? Or is it the historical lack of a complex religious feudal hierarchy to put down thinkers whom the Catholic Church would have seen as a threat to entrenched interests? If I remember correctly, one of the reasons Gellner posits is the egalitarianism at the heart of Islam, especially in the matters of religious scholarship which makes a single unified mainstream view on certain matters elusive, and as a result, almost impossible to contravene.

If Muslims are more stead-fast in their faith in face of science, could it be because we've never really seen them as two separate entities, but seen one as the extension of the other? Although it could be purely superficial; the pursuit of ilm is one of the most encouraged things in Islam after all which may be why Islamic society has usually never threatened by such.

Any thoughts?

agree to an extend
there is the lingual issue to define each term , the cultural factor that asigne <sp?>  each term to historical events  and the current matrix of thoughts facts ideas and belives

ilm dosnt equal science , ilm mostly dose equal knowldge , science as is dosnt have and equal in arabic , in arabic there is knowldge of the physics
or modern(western) knowldge
Ilm can be learnt and can be intuitive , actually i've heard sayed kamal haidary saying shia philosophers have 7 categories of Ilm

back to religion , as it is deen in arabic which means only a way of life , it may have or may have not faith in it

as for neuroscience , it is experimental science , they place you in a tube like machine , make some visual flashes or other stimuli to your brain via screen or mic and studies your brain electercity in time ,they locate which part of brain worked during this thought and which one worked during that thought

Quote

But that is not what Harris expects to find. He suspects the machines will show that "belief is belief is belief." And that conclusion, he admits, may put him at loggerheads with familiar foes. No one, he says, could accuse him or anyone else of trying to disprove God's existence on the basis of an fMRI. But faith is more vulnerable. "People who feel that religious faith is a singular operation of the brain — if they admit that it's an operation of the brain at all — would object to what I'm doing, since it may show that faith is essentially the same as other kinds of knowing or thinking. The whole thing will seem fishy to anyone who thinks we have immaterial souls running around in our bodies."

Read more: http://www.time.com/...l#ixzz1thhN5pxw

[iDevonian]

Incognito, on 02 May 2012 - 02:52 AM, said:

I am too sick and tired of the term 'religion'. It is far too loose for us to make good use of anything.

I have found in my own experience that those who have Muslim backgrounds hold a much greater importance to faith. Whereas you get some who by studying things like physics begin to reject the existence of God whereas every person with a Muslim background who I know has done advanced physics still believes in a God.

Physics isnt really an anti-god science as far as I am concerned. Id say its when you look at fields like anthropology for example, biology and geology etc, that you may become reasonably "liberalized".

Though I would say, Islam, in a liberal form, is just as compatible with science as any other religion in their liberal forms.