Quote:Scientists have revealed one of the reasons why some folks are less religious than others: They think more analytically, rather than going with their gut. And thinking analytically can cause religious belief to wane — for skeptics and true believers alike.
The study, published in Friday’s edition of the journal Science, indicates that belief may be a more malleable feature of the human psyche than those of strong faith may think.
The cognitive origins of belief — and disbelief — traditionally haven’t been explored with academic rigor, said lead author Will Gervais, a social psychologist at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada
“There’s been a long-standing intellectual tradition of treating science as one thing and religion as separate, and never the twain shall meet,” he said. But in recent years, he added, there has been a push “to understand religion and why our species has the capacity for religion.
According to one theory of human thinking, the brain processes information using two systems. The first relies on mental shortcuts by using intuitive responses — a gut instinct, if you will — to quickly arrive at a conclusion. The other employs deliberative analysis, which uses reason to arrive at a conclusion.
Both systems are useful and can run in parallel, the theory goes. But when called upon, analytic thinking can override intuition.
Studies suggest that religious beliefs are rooted in this intuitive processing, Gervais said. So, he wondered, would thinking analytically undermine religious belief as it overrides intuitive thought?
To find out, his research team had college students perform three thinking tasks, each with an intuitive (incorrect) answer and an analytic (correct) answer.
For example, students were asked this question: “A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?” The intuitive answer — 10 cents — would be wrong. A little math on the fly reveals that the correct answer would be 5 cents.
After answering three of these questions, the students were asked to rate a series of statements on belief, including, “In my life I feel the presence of the Divine,” and “I just don’t understand religion.” Students who answered the three questions correctly — and presumably did a better job of engaging their analytical skills — were more likely to score lower on the belief scales.
To tease out whether analytic thinking was actually causing belief to decrease, the researchers performed a series of additional experiments.
First, students were randomly assigned to look at images of Auguste Rodin's sculpture "The Thinker," or of the ancient Greek statue of a discus thrower, "Discobolus." Those who viewed "The Thinker" were prompted to think more analytically and expressed less belief in God — they scored an average of 41.42 on a 100-point scale, compared with an average of 61.55 for the group that viewed the discus thrower, according to the study.
Two additional experiments used word games rather than images. In one case, participants were asked to arrange a series of words into a sentence. Some were given neutral words and others were presented with trigger words such as "think," "reason" and "analyze" to prime them to think more analytically. And indeed, those who got the "thinking" words expressed less religiosity on a 10-to-70 scale: They ranked themselves at 34.39, on average, while those in the control group averaged 40.16.
In the final experiment, students in the control group read text in a clear, legible font, while those in the other group were forced to squint at a font that was hard to read, a chore that has been shown to trigger analytic thinking. Sure enough, those who read the less legible font rated their belief in supernatural agents at 10.40 on a 3-to-21 scale, compared with 12.16 for those who read the clear font.
So does this mean that religious faith can be undermined with just a little extra mental effort? Not really, said Nicholas Epley, a social psychologist at the University of Chicago who was not involved in the study. But it does show that belief isn't set in stone, but can respond to a person's context.
"There's an illusion that our brains are more static than they actually are," he said. "We have fundamental beliefs and values that we hold, and those things seem sticky, constant. But it's easier to get movement on something fundamental."
As for whether this should alarm the layperson, Epley shrugged. "Even deeply religious people will point out they have had moments of doubt," he said.
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-s...4010.story
Which one did they use to perform the experiments, faith or thinking? Lol, do people even see themselves?
What a completely and utterly pointless test and conclusion. Just more people trying to force there definitions on others.
I realized a few months ago that the majority of this Atheism vs Theism-type debates originate in defying the dogmas of ONE religion. I see the catholic church as the main force behind that, really, especially in USA - and with the internet helping people to polarize ASAP, once a young, just graduated student recognizes that he does not want to go to the church every sunday just like his parents do, he calls himself an Atheist because he does not know there are other things to choose from. Them vs us situation, again.
And therefore, I do not even concern myself with mainstream atheism as it is more likely just anti-dogmaism. The above survey does not deal with spirituality. It just deals with some religious belief systems - which does not concern the majority on this board*
*And yes, I recognize one can still be christian, and a good one at that, but the individual religions are never absolute in righteousness.
The neighborhood I just moved in to has bible thumpers going door to door... I can't believe how pushy and controlling they get. I gave them the polite "not interested" and they still came back with a "are you sure, blahblahblah". You don't see me with the first LOO book going door-door shoving it in everyone's face.
Anyways, I think they will all see sometime this year that 99%+ of "Christians" and the other major religions are simply following a corporate control structure.
Also, this article annoyingly misconceives what intuition even is. I think that word belongs in the categories of words that are so misused that I tend to avoid them, like the word god.
On the flip side, atheists follow a rigid control system that ends up being extremely similar to the major religions, but do not realize this, of course. This comes in the form of whichever institution they worship, be it psychology, pharmacology, etc. They even start behaving in the same manner that they like to make fun of the religious, like believing in a scientific theory that is widely accepted like it were written on some stone tablet.
It all boils down to the lemming mentality. Just get in line like everybody else.
I mainly thought the article header was humorous. I assume you have all read about the vmat 2 vaccine?
I think what they are talking about is faith in belief. That has nothing at all to do with intuition. Gut feelings tend to be fear based, so not exactly accurate to me either.
I do my best to follow my intuition and pure logic at the same time. I find that they can complement each other very well, when properly balanced.
Thinking undermines faith? Absence of heart undermines faith. It might seem you're thinking more. But it really means your thoughts are only guided by themselves. Like your car suddenly deciding for itself which direction to drive.
There was a dream reading David Wilcock did on someone where his "Little Ra" source said something to the effect (according to my reading) that to have real faith, it is necessary to go outside all the belief systems that have been presented to you and really, seriously consider what is true and real on your own. According to David's source, it's that journey that leads to understanding the Law of One, and that takes skeptical thought.
In my own life, I have been through a process of becoming *incredibly* skeptical, to the point of utter nihilism and solipsism. I rejected all preexisting spiritual teachings, including those on compassion, since I frankly wasn't ready to believe in the existence of other minds. To be honest, I didn't know, so I felt I had to throw it out, or else I'd betray myself. This entire process required thought, thought, thought - the most difficult and rigorous thought I've ever had to do.
Of course, I pieced it all back together again (of course, or I wouldn't be here). It took me years of searching - and more thinking - to rebuild anything resembling a functioning worldview, but this time much of the garbage wasn't part of it, though I still have distortions. To become so skeptical took a great act of faith. To treat nothing as sacred, even the commandment to love, took great faith. To rebuild a coherent worldview out of nothing took great faith. To me, the willingness to doubt *everything*, to treat no thought as too scary to think, was the greatest possible expression of faith. And that thinking *caused* greater faith, because great skepticism can only possibly lead one out of *all* worldly views to the Law of One. Not the description of that view as taught by a channeled entity or anyone else, but the absolutely infallible realization that There Is Only One, that One *has* to be You, and that's The Truth. All other truths are circumstantial and can change. "I AM" is the bedrock.
In the end, it was thought and doubt that gave me faith - and with it, love and trust and the sure knowledge that you are part of me and I am part of you in a big tangled ball of divine energy forever. Pretty cool.
Just to mention: The kind of thought that took place was really mostly about finding out what it was I actually believed and then seeing if it contradicted reality somehow, or some other belief I had that I was more sure of. The process of thought dovetailed with intuition, though, by essentially clearing out mental distortions so there was more empty space to be filled with soul-deep certainty. And it had a lot to do with Ra's admonition in LOO to allow feelings to arise, followed by their antithesis, to seek a balance. This applies, in my experience, to thoughts and their opposites also, since in general thoughts have a feeling-content they are paired with/inseparable from. So this is my own expression of a process that Ra did get at.
"A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds to thoughts of religion."
Francis Bacon