Analytic Thinking Can Undermine Belief

[burahadeer]

Raamsade;825540 wrote:

One of the great appeals of organized religions is that they simplify otherwise complex world into pre-packaged set of binary choices. Good and Evil. Xalaal and Xaraam. Heaven and Hell. Dos and Donts. Why bother with the tough task of thinking for yourself when you can relegate that to others. That is why we have Churches, Mosques, Synagogs, Temples and by extension self-help gurus because no one wants to take respensibility for themselves... people are enticed by the idea that everything will be hunky-dory if you pray this way and read these verses. But the surrender of independent thought means you're prone to being misled as we often see with religious people. Muslims all over the world are blowing themselves and others up on the believe that they're going to go to heaven. None of them have paused for a second and asked: wait a minute, is this even true?

 

superb:cool:

[Mario B]

In the atheist world there is no good and evil, so I never understood their righteous indignation...? As a matter of fact, evil and good is a religious concept! For all I know no scientific method has ever proven that there is no GOD, or that there is no life after death, on this issue both atheist and theist are guided by faith, A LEAP OF FAITH! and that's why this discussion requires humility from both sides of the fence.

[Garnaqsi]

Mario B;825998 wrote:

In the atheist world there is no good and evil, so I never understood their righteous indignation...? As a matter of fact, evil and good is a religious concept! For all I know no scientific method has ever

proven that there is no GOD

, or that there is

no life after death,

on this issue both atheist and theist are guided by faith, A LEAP OF FAITH! and that's why this discussion requires humility from both sides of the fence.

The scientific method has never proven that Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist yet that doesn't mean one should suspend judgement on whether or not it exists. The same goes for any other being whose existence isn't supported by scientific evidence. Suspending judgement on God's existence on this basis is epistemologically impractical - and that's acknowledged by most of today's respected theologians. But if your opinion of morality not existing in atheist's world and it being a religious concept is anything to go by, I doubt you've done any reading on the matter.

[Serendipitous]

while the experiment is interesting i question the accuracy of it for it fails to take into the many complicated factors regarding religious faith.

[Mario B]

Garnaqsi;826383 wrote:

The scientific method has never proven that Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist yet that doesn't mean one should suspend judgement on whether or not it exists. The same goes for any other being whose existence isn't supported by scientific evidence. Suspending judgement on God's existence on this basis is epistemologically impractical - and that's acknowledged by most of today's respected theologians. But if your opinion of morality not existing in atheist's world and it being a religious concept is anything to go by, I doubt you've done any reading on the matter.

While I agree with some of your above comments, where I disagree with you is the disingenuous way you come on this forum and pretend that your version of truth is written in stone. Just admit it, on this issue at this moment in time you're just speculating, also just admit that we are both creatures of belief, albeit a different version of it.

 

As for my limited reading, well I would let Socrates speak for me... " the only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing"

On morality, I would say apart from Nietzsche, most atheist are just theists without God. [Especially the pious ones ]

[Garnaqsi]

Mario B;826472 wrote:

While I agree with some of your above comments, where I disagree with you is the disingenuous way you come on this forum and pretend that your version of truth is written in stone. Just admit it, on this issue at this moment in time you're just speculating, also just admit that we are both creatures of belief, albeit a different version of it.

 

As for my limited reading, well I would let Socrates speak for me... " the only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing"

On morality, I would say apart from Nietzsche, most atheist are just theists without God. [Especially the pious ones

]

I don't know what you mean by my version of truth. If you think my scepticism towards religion is arrogant, then do explain why. I would have to subscribe to a religion for us to have different versions of belief, so I would have to disappoint you on that one as well. Your remark on morality surprised me because no serious thinker nowadays considers morality to have had a religious origin; as a matter of fact, the converse is widely considered to be true! As a joke, though, I think it's a good thing that you subscribe to religion; as you have conditioned morality to religion, I would hate to imagine what would have become of you without the leash of religion.

[Mario B]

Garnaqsi;826485 wrote:

I don't know what you mean by my version of truth. If you think my scepticism towards religion is arrogant, then do explain why. I would have to subscribe to a religion for us to have different versions of belief, so I would have to disappoint you on that one as well. Your remark on morality surprised me because no serious thinker nowadays considers morality to have had a religious origin; as a matter of fact, the converse is widely considered to be true! As a joke, though, I think it's a good thing that you subscribe to religion; as you have conditioned morality to religion, I would hate to imagine what would have become of you without the leash of religion.

In the absence of scientific method to determine wether proposition A [There is God] or proposition B [There is no God] is correct then any judgement that you and I make will be based on a leap of faith, hence why I used the word belief in describing your position!

 

Now you don't have to believe in order to be religious, you as an atheist can perfom all of Islamic or Christian ritual and dogmas [command and prohibitions] and still be unbeliver i.e you can pray, fast, have a nikah [ you're probably planning one ] and still reject the proposition that there is God in your heart. Hence why we have HYPOCRITES! So don't confuse rituals to internal realityt!!

[Garnaqsi]

Mario B;827679 wrote:

In the absence of scientific method to determine wether proposition A [There is God] or proposition B [There is no God] is correct then any judgement that you and I make will be based on a leap of faith, hence why I used the word belief in describing your position!

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.

Now you don't have to believe in order to be religious, you as an atheist can perfom all of Islamic or Christian ritual and dogmas [command and prohibitions] and still be unbeliver i.e you can pray, fast, have a nikah [ you're probably planning one

] and still reject the proposition that there is God in your heart. Hence why we have HYPOCRITES! So don't confuse rituals to internal realityt!!

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

[ElPunto]

I'm not sure why the same folks keep bringing the same topics re believers are slow, Islam is pre-modern etc. Not sure what the point is of this type of frequent contribution.

[Garnaqsi]

ElPunto;827852 wrote:

I'm not sure why the same folks keep bringing the same topics re believers are slow, Islam is pre-modern etc. Not sure what the point is of this type of frequent contribution.

What are you talking about? :confused:

[N.O.R.F]

Garnaqsi;827843 wrote:

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

analytic philosphy

It would be good if the rejectors of the faith demonstrated a basic understanding of the faith they've rejected or even faith in general in order for any interesting discourse to take place. Your exchanges with Mario B (who has hit the nail on the head by the way), your non attempt at looking at Ngonge's comment about Nabi Ibrahim (CSWS) or my story about the atheist's reversion only go to show you've yet to grasp the fundamentals of 'faith' and/or 'belief'.

 

Therefore, is there any point?

[Garnaqsi]

N.O.R.F;827873 wrote:

It would be good if the rejectors of the faith demonstrated a basic understanding of the faith they've rejected or even faith in general in order for any interesting discourse to take place. Your exchanges with Mario B (who has hit the nail on the head by the way), your non attempt at looking at Ngonge's comment about Nabi Ibrahim (CSWS) or my story about the atheist's reversion only go to show you've yet to grasp the fundamentals of 'faith' and/or 'belief'.

Ngonge suggested that scientists should be looking at religious stories like that of Abraham instead of wasting their time with scientific investigations like this one. That's ridiculous and doesn't warrant serious reply at all. I don't know what you were expecting me to do with the story you posted. Mario B presented an argument. Fair play to him. On the other hand, most of the time you only come here with accusations of lack of understanding of faith -- on which, by the way, I've challenged you and you opted out with "I just see athiests throwing lot of blunt spears." Suffice to say you are probably the worst debater I've come across on this board!

[N.O.R.F]

Touché.

 

There is a difference between debating with someone who knows what he is rejecting and one who doesn’t. Our previous discussions show you’re yet to fully comprehend the basics of belief in relation to Islam as well as having a baseless objection to it.

 

The story I posted shows a ‘rational’ and analytical atheist (a professor of mathematics at that) becoming a Muslim and saying:

 

“You cannot simply read the Quran, 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 Quran 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.”

This professor used his usual analytical thought process to conclude that there is a God and that Islam was the right religion. In order for him to make such a conclusion (even if it was the opposite), it is required for him to read, think and analyse the sources of Islam (or even Christianity et al). A definition of analytical thinking is:

 

1. The ability to scrutinize and break down facts and thoughts into their strengths and weaknesses.

2. Developing the capacity to think in a thoughtful, discerning way, to solve problems, analyze data, and recall and use information.

 

http://www.pathways.cu.edu.eg/subpages/training_courses/analytical_thinking/Chapter1_s.htm

 

What you have put forth here is research conducted in such a way that actually dilutes analytical thinking to looking at pictures and statues and then, after a 5 minutes break, measures people’s level of belief (of which we have no methodological information). It’s quite pathetic to be honest. What is analytical about looking at pictures and statues? Analytical thinking or just tricks?

 

If the researchers were honest and didn’t have an agenda of diluting analytical thinking to looking at pictures and statues to give the impression analytical thinking somehow results in less belief (research no doubt conducted for various causes/reasons), they would, for example, request people to read religious text (Quran, Bible, Toorah etc) and then when they’ve finished reading, measure their levels of belief.

 

What is surprising (or maybe not so surprising) is that you, having previously stated you have used your own rational/analytical thinking to object to religion, fail to see the short-comings of this research. Or are you taking it as gospel?

 

Atheists tend to want to have their cake and eat it. You’re no different.

 

A comment on the reaserch.

 

Gervais and Norenzayan may be overconfidently assuming that their experiments differentiate between analytic and intuitive thinking. I find it hard to believe that glimpses of statues have any effect on religious beliefs. (Of course, I'm ignorant of how the researchers "measured" beliefs.) They assume that seeing the Rodin somehow stimulates an analytic-thinking response because the statue is iconic. For all they know, viewers could be affected in other ways, e.g., the good-humored may feel it looks like someone on a toilet. Discobolus might induce analysis of the difficulty of throwing the discus, the ideal angle of release, etc. The font test may have merely demonstrated differences between the patient and the impatient.

.

[Garnaqsi]

N.O.R.F;827937 wrote:

Our previous discussions show you’re yet to fully comprehend the basics of belief in relation to Islam as well as having a baseless objection to it.

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?

[Garnaqsi]

N.O.R.F;827937 wrote:

This professor used his usual analytical thought process to conclude that there is a God and that Islam was the right religion. In order for him to make such a conclusion (even if it was the opposite), it is required for him to read, think and analyse the sources of Islam (or even Christianity et al).

.

He probably did. However, he didn't clearly outline the process. He tells us that the Koran vigorously challenged his thinking up to the point that he had to give up. That's vague at best. What exactly challenged him? If we wish to, how could we judge whether his conviction was justified? I'm not saying it wasn't. It well could have been justified. But 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.

 

What is surprising (or maybe not so surprising) is that you, having previously stated you have used your own rational/analytical thinking to object to religion, fail to see the short-comings of this research. Or are you taking it as gospel?

Suffice to say, if I have any objections to this research, it will surely be stronger than defensive and sentimental dismissal of it being just 'looking at pictures and statues'. I'm still trying to get hold of the original research paper, and I'll probably post what I think of it.