Analytic Thinking Can Undermine Belief

[N.O.R.F]

In order for me to take you seriously it would be a good idea for you to address my WHOLE post rather than just the bits that you feel favour a counter argument. I talked about and gave you a definition of analytical thinking. I stated the research presented goes against that definition in that it equates analytical thinking with simply looking at pictures and statues and forming an opinion on belief!

 

The point I was making about the professor who became a Muslim was that he was analytical. He actually analysed the source of Islam and made a decision. This is an example of analytical thinking in terms of trying to determine the existence of God by reading a source that states there is a God. Your frivolous attempt at undermining it is irrelevant.

 

What the research presents, in my opinion, has nothing to do with analytical thinking. How can looking at pictures or reading italic or standard type face text be equated with analytical thinking and then go even further and conclude those doing so have more or less belief in God? The research is flawed. Call it defensive or sentimental as much as you like but my objection has a BASIS. More than what you have so far managed to conjure up in its defence.

 

The question I ask you is, can a decision based on looking at a picture of something completely unrelated be considered analytical?

 

Roll your sleeves up

 

Ps, we will deal with the other issue another time (I don’t want to dilute this thread).

[Mario B]

Garnaqsi;827843 wrote:

I've no idea what you're getting at here.

You are confusing belief [internal reality] and religious rituals/ organisations. What I was implying was that you don't have to belong to a religion in order to hold a belief. So when I say you hold a belief, I am not choosing a religious /way of life for you but merely stating your internal reality, which is a belief in disbelief of Divine existence.

 

P.s Last time I used wikipedia I got lambasted by one of your fellow atheist, can we have some consistence here?, please!

[Garnaqsi]

Garnaqsi;827998 wrote:

What exactly in our previous discussions show that I don't understand the basics of belief? What is it about faith that I'm apparently yet to comprehend? A tenner says he will not come up with any examples or quotes from our previous discussions. Any takers?

No doubt there were no takers!

[Garnaqsi]

Come on, Mario. Just try addressing the bit below. (What you say on your last post very much depends on your objection to this).

Garnaqsi;827843 wrote:

Similarly then, in the absence of scientific method to determine whether proposition A [There is Loch Ness Monster] or proposition B [There is no Loch Ness Monster] is correct then any judgement that you and I make will be based on a leap of faith! Do you now see the problem with your argument? As I've explained to you earlier, suspending judgement on God's existence on this basis is epistemologically impractical. That's why we have

Occam's razor

,

burden of proof

,

Russell's teapot

and so on in philosophy. I'm disappointed to say most people in this forum use arguments that have been abandoned before the dawn of

analytic philosphy

.

Your wikipedia cop-out is not working because the things I linked to are just philosophy 101. If you are interested in these debates, then really should know them (I only embed in the links because I don't assume much of the people on this board, rightly it seems).

[Garnaqsi]

N.O.R.F;828063 wrote:

In order for me to take you seriously it would be a good idea for you to address my WHOLE post rather than just the bits that you feel favour a counter argument. I talked about and gave you a definition of analytical thinking. I stated the research presented goes against that definition in that it equates analytical thinking with simply looking at pictures and statues and forming an opinion on belief!

 

The point I was making about the professor who became a Muslim was that he was analytical. He actually analysed the source of Islam and made a decision. This is an example of analytical thinking in terms of trying to determine the existence of God by reading a source that states there is a God. Your frivolous attempt at undermining it is irrelevant.

 

What the research presents, in my opinion, has nothing to do with analytical thinking. How can looking at pictures or reading italic or standard type face text be equated with analytical thinking and then go even further and conclude those doing so have more or less belief in God? The research is flawed. Call it defensive or sentimental as much as you like but my objection has a BASIS. More than what you have so far managed to conjure up in its defence.

 

The question I ask you is, can a decision based on looking at a picture of something completely unrelated be considered analytical?

 

Roll your sleeves up

 

Ps, we will deal with the other issue another time (I don’t want to dilute this thread).

I didn't really dwell on your thoughts about the research because you are entitled to that. However, I thought your objection was disappointing. It doesn't even seem you thought through it. Here is why. You ask how can looking at a picture can be equated with analytic thinking. Well, it isn't. The idea is that looking at The Thinker stimulated analytic thinking. This was tested on a different group of randomly selected participants in a separate test. This type stimuli response is actually well known in psychology; it's called Pavlovian conditioning. Look it up. So your objection not only obviously lacks the basics but it's also laughably arrogant.

 

As for your convert friend, you rebuff my what I said about his conversion as irrelevant 'frivolous attempt at undermining it'. It isn't. Say, for example, the guy actually converted to Christianity instead of Islam. Replacing the Koran with the Bible in his statement, we have:

 

“You cannot simply read the Bible, not if you take it seriously. You either have surrendered to it already or you fight it. It attacks tenaciously, directly, personally; it debates, criticizes, shames, and challenges. From the outset it draws the line of battle, and I was on the other side.” Thus he found himself in an interesting battle. “I was at a severe disadvantage, for it became clear that the Author knew me better than I knew myself.” It was as if the Author was reading his mind. Every night he would make up certain questions and objections, but would find the answer in his next readings as he continued his readings in the accepted order. “The Bible was always way ahead of my thinking; it was erasing barriers I had built years ago and was addressing my queries.” He fought vigorously with objections and questions, but it was apparent that he was losing the battle. “I was being led, working my way into a corner that contained only one choice.”

It lost nothing and gained nothing. That's why it's profoundly useless and vague. There is nothing analytic about it. As I said earlier, he tells us that the Koran vigorously challenged his thinking up to the point that he had to give up. But what exactly challenged him? If we wish to, how could we judge whether his conviction was justified? As I also said earlier, it seems to me you assume the validity of his exact reasoning (despite not knowing anything about it) just because you agree with his conclusion, thus falling for a cognitive bias. Come with a better objection to this than a mere dismissal of it being an irrelevant 'frivolous attempt at undermining it'.

 

[Mario B]

Garnaqsi;828286 wrote:

No doubt there were no takers!

I think the comment below answers you perfect well!

The question being...

 

Garnaqsi;828286 wrote:

What exactly in our previous discussions show that I don't understand the basics of belief? What is it about faith that I'm apparently yet to comprehend? A tenner says he will not come up with any examples or quotes from our previous discussions. Any takers?

You are confusing belief [internal reality] and religious rituals/dogmas. What I was implying was that you don't have to belong to a religion in order to hold a belief. So when I say you hold a belief, I am not choosing a religious /way of life for you but merely stating your internal reality, which is a belief in disbelief of Divine existence.

[Mario B]

Garnaqsi;828287 wrote:

(I only embed in the links because I don't assume much of the people on this board, rightly it seems).

Ah, the irony...last time I used a wiki link you mocked me and Raamsade was not best pleased, hence my caution. I object to your arrogant assumptions, it just makes you sound anal and pretentious. I did hint to you earlier on this thread about this tendency of yours!:eek:

[Mario B]

If I may get back to the issue, it seem me and you are going in circles here. Given that I accept your atheist position and you accept my theist position... i.e I am not here to prove the existence God, nor I am asking you to disprove the existence God, then the argument of whom the burden of proof lies with or Russells teapot arguement becomes redundant!

 

On Occam's razor [if I remember correctly] my understanding of this logic is, in a situations of two explanation with regards to a proposition that are similar i.e one complex and another simple....Occam asks us to take the simple argurment with least assumptions. I dont know how it applies on our situation here when me and you are taking two opposite propositions.

[Garnaqsi]

Mario B;828304 wrote:

If I may get back to the issue, it seem me and you are going in circles. Given that I accept your atheist position and you accept my theist position i.e I am not here to prove the existence God, nor I am asking you to disprove the existence God, then the argument of whom the burden of proof lies with or Russells teapot arguement becomes redundant!

 

On Occam's razor [if I remember correctly] my understanding of this logic is, in a situations of two explanation with regards to a proposition that are similar i.e one complex and another simple....Occam asks us to take the simple argurment with least assumptions. I dont know how it applies on our situation here when me and you are taking to opposite proposition.

That wasn't the point. I was illustrating how requiring one to suspend judgement on whether God exists isn't practical. It's because of this impracticality and similar ones that we have invented the philosophic devices that I've mentioned. You completely ignored this and are now claiming that atheist's stance is one posited on belief. Bertrand Russell was one of the most influential atheists in the 20th century, and to describe his position -- as illustrated by the teapot analogy -- as one based on 'belief' is plainly ridiculous.

[Garnaqsi]

Mario B;828302 wrote:

Ah, the irony...last time I used a wiki link you mocked me and Raamsade was not best pleased, hence my caution. I object to your arrogant assumptions, it just makes you sound anal and pretentious. I did hint to you earlier on this thread about this tendency of yours!:eek:

I wasn't mocking you, silly. I was pointing out how couple of guys in that thread complained about me using a wiki link yet ignored your one. In my opinion using Wikipedia as an expository source is harmless; only using it as a supporting source is the problem.

[Mario B]

Garnaqsi;828307 wrote:

That wasn't the point. I was illustrating how requiring one to suspend judgement on whether God exists isn't practical. It's because of this impracticality and similar ones that we have invented the philosophic devices that I've mentioned. You completely ignored this and are now claiming that atheist's stance is one posited on belief. Bertrand Russell was one of the most influential atheists in the 20s century, and to describe his position -- as illustrated by the teapot analogy -- as one based on 'belief' is plainly ridiculous.

I know you also suffer from external pride, what I am saying is you take pride of accomplishment that are done by others, especially those whom you feel can defend your position best. I have yet to see an argument in which you have put your own world view or slant...you seem to be hiding behind others, what is it that you stand for, in your own words please.?

 

 

 

I know what Bertrand Russel [your priest] stands for.." In this godless universe, we shall becomes gods"

Simple questions.

 

What is belief according to you?

When you say you are an atheist what do you mean?

 

P.s We could continue later, I need to go.

[aero]

I don't understand why non-believers such as yourself Garnaqsi aad isku mashqulisin those who choose (keyword here) to believe. To each their own right?

[Garnaqsi]

So Mario has given up chasing the argument and now wants to know what I believe. Well, it's pretty simple for me, really: I've no belief in God (with Russellian type justification, as you might have gathered). You will have to be specific if you wish to know more.

[N.O.R.F]

Garnaqsi;828295 wrote:

I didn't really dwell on your thoughts about the research because you are entitled to that. However, I thought your objection was disappointing. It doesn't even seem you thought through it. Here is why. You ask how can looking at a picture can be equated with analytic thinking. Well, it isn't. The idea is that looking at The Thinker stimulated analytic thinking. This was tested on a different group of randomly selected participants in a separate test. This type stimuli response is actually well known in psychology; it's called

Pavlovian conditioning

. Look it up. So your objection not only obviously lacks the basics but it's also laughably arrogant.

 

As for your convert friend, you rebuff my what I said about his conversion as irrelevant 'frivolous attempt at undermining it'. It isn't. Say, for example, the guy actually converted to Christianity instead of Islam. Replacing the Koran with the Bible in his statement, we have:

 

“You cannot simply read the Bible, not if you take it seriously. You either have surrendered to it already or you fight it. It attacks tenaciously, directly, personally; it debates, criticizes, shames, and challenges. From the outset it draws the line of battle, and I was on the other side.” Thus he found himself in an interesting battle. “I was at a severe disadvantage, for it became clear that the Author knew me better than I knew myself.” It was as if the Author was reading his mind. Every night he would make up certain questions and objections, but would find the answer in his next readings as he continued his readings in the accepted order. “The Bible was always way ahead of my thinking; it was erasing barriers I had built years ago and was addressing my queries.” He fought vigorously with objections and questions, but it was apparent that he was losing the battle. “I was being led, working my way into a corner that contained only one choice.”

It lost nothing and gained nothing. That's why it's profoundly useless and vague. There is nothing analytic about it. As I said earlier, he tells us that the Koran vigorously challenged his thinking up to the point that he had to give up. But what exactly challenged him? If we wish to, how could we judge whether his conviction was justified? As I also said earlier, it seems to me you assume the validity of his exact reasoning (despite not knowing anything about it) just because you agree with his conclusion, thus falling for a cognitive bias. Come with a better objection to this than a mere dismissal of it being an irrelevant 'frivolous attempt at undermining it'.

 

The problem I have with the research it is that it doesn’t appear to do what it says on the tin. According to the research, The Thinker statue inspires analytic thinking. Ok. Then, having looked at the statue, participants’ religious views change. Ok. But, in order for such conclusions to be considered as a result of analytic thought, surely ANALYSIS (of belief) is required. Get it?

 

The revert ANALYSED information he considered important and his questions/objections were answered/clarified. Whether you agree with it or if its justified is irrelevant. It’s irrelevant because he reached his decision based on what HE thought was the truth after his usual analytical thought process. He made a choice (remember that discussion we had? ). Your eagerness to use your usual analytical process in relation to this man’s reversion is noted (and misguided). If only you would apply the same to the research

[Raamsade]

N.O.R.F;828383 wrote:

But, in order for such conclusions to be considered as a result of analytic thought, surely ANALYSIS (of belief) is required. Get it?

Why? You gonna have to explain your reasoning because I don't follow it. The goal of the test was too see how people react when subjected to distinct stimuli. How does the "analysis" of believe fit into all of this? And what right minded academic would want to carry out "analysis" of belief? Have you lost your marbles buddy? Could you envisage picking the brains of, say, Sh. Umul? The experimenter will probably pass out from boredom.

 

 

 

 

N.O.R.F;828383 wrote:

It’s irrelevant because he reached his decision based on what HE thought was the truth after his usual analytical thought process.

He obviously wasn't any good at. "Analytical thought process" doens't shield anyone from reaching the wrong conclusions. You can't expect me to take seriously a man who believes Mohammed rode to the "heavens" on a prehistoric space going flying thingy named Buraq. What is this Buraq thing anyways? I wanna get piece of it. What sort of fuel did run on. If it jwas like barn animal plus wings, who fed it and what kind of feed was it on? How was it born/made? I refuse to accept any intelligent person can believe some of these Alice in Wonder, Harry Potter calibre fairly tales found in Abrahamic religions.