I'm shocked I tell you.
Quote
It’s often said that some people are ‘born believers,’ taking to religion in a way that ultimately boils down to intuition.
But, new research suggests a belief in god does not come to us naturally.
In a series of studies, scientists examined the link between religious belief and intuition, using the responses of people involved in the famous Camino de Santiago pilgrimage, along with data from analytical tasks and brain stimulation exercises.
While some psychologists in recent decades have argued that people with strong religious beliefs tend to be more intuitive and less analytical, the study found there is no such link; instead, the researchers say a religious way of thought is learned.
In a series of studies, scientists examined the link between religious belief and intuition, using the responses of people involved in the famous Camino de Santiago pilgrimage, along with data from analytical tasks and brain stimulation exercises.
In a series of studies, scientists examined the link between religious belief and intuition, using the responses of people involved in the famous Camino de Santiago pilgrimage, along with data from analytical tasks and brain stimulation exercises.
Graham Lawton, author of the new book 'How to be Human,' suggests that as our lives become more stable, society could become 'godless' as our need for religion fades away.
When children encounter religion, Mr Lawson argues they find the explanations it offers intuitively appealing and believable - making them born believers - but this instinct is drummed out of them by education.
The author claimed the reason people continue to be believe it because 'they haven't thought that hard about it'.
However, although the future will be increasingly secular, humans will never totally lose the god instinct.
As long as existential uncertainty exists Mr Lawton claims religion will not disappear completely - even though he believes some of the things in the bible are 'just crazy'.
People cling onto moral guidance and existential comfort and they don't let go of them easily, he said.
In a new paper, published in the journal Scientific Reports, researchers from the universities of Coventry and Oxford argue that religious belief is not associated with intuition or rational thinking, as previous works have suggested.
‘What drives our belief in gods â€" intuition or reason; heart or head?’ said lead author Miguel Farias.
‘There has been a long debate on this matter but our studies have challenged the theory that being a religious believer is determined by how much individuals rely on intuitive or analytical thinking.’
The team interviewed participants of the Camino de Santiago de Compostela, in northern Spain â€" one of the largest pilgrimage routes in the world.
Participants were asked about the strengths of their beliefs, and the length of time they spent on the journey.
Then, the researchers used a probability task to assess their intuitive thinking.
The task required they choose between a logical choice, and one based on ‘gut feeling.’
In additional studies, the researchers used mathematical puzzles and brain stimulation to increase either intuition, or cognitive inhibition, which is thought to regulate analytical thinking.
The brains stimulation exercise involved a painless electrical current, which activated the region of the brain that controls inhibitory control.
According to the researchers, previous studies have suggested that atheists use this area of the brain more when attempting to suppress supernatural ideas.
Across the board, the team found that there was no link between intuitive thinking and supernatural belief.
And, brain stimulation â€" which did increase levels of cognitive inhibition â€" did not change levels of supernatural belief, suggesting there is no link between the two.
The findings suggest religious belief is a product of socio-cultural factors, such as upbringing and education.
The idea that belief in god is intuitive or natural is ‘premature,’ the researchers say.
‘We don’t think people are “born believers†in the same way we inevitably learn a language at an early age,’ Farias said.
‘The available sociological and historical data show that what we believe in is mainly based on social and educational factors, and not on cognitive styles, such as intuitive/analytical thinking.
‘Religious belief is most likely rooted in culture rather than in some primitive gut intuition.’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5063883/Study-Religious-belief-not-linked-intuition.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5063883/Study-Religious-belief-not-linked-intuition.html)
So very very shocked.
Certainly isn't for most people. Most people are idiots. Only Illuminati are rational ... and intuitive, and rich and handsome ...
Most of human culture, including politics, economics, religion etc are cargo cults. Stick that thru your septum and twang it.
QuoteBut, new research suggests a belief in god does not come to us naturally.
Weird. I would've thought that belief in an eternal, omnipotent, and omnipresent but invisible being would come to kids naturally. Baby's first words: "credo in unum deum"
Could you imagine if the opposite were true? If theistic beliefs don't really come naturally to kids but are instead imposed on kids? Not only would that be kinda messed up, it would actually undermine religion because one's beliefs are dictated by upbringing rather than choice. A world like that would be awful!
QuoteGraham Lawton, author of the new book 'How to be Human,' suggests that as our lives become more stable, society could become 'godless' as our need for religion fades away.
It's almost as if panicky people make poor decisions.
QuoteThe author claimed the reason people continue to be believe it because 'they haven't thought that hard about it'.
The jokes just write themselves...
QuoteThe brains stimulation exercise involved a painless electrical current, which activated the region of the brain that controls inhibitory control.
According to the researchers, previous studies have suggested that atheists use this area of the brain more when attempting to suppress supernatural ideas.
Across the board, the team found that there was no link between intuitive thinking and supernatural belief.
And, brain stimulation â€" which did increase levels of cognitive inhibition â€" did not change levels of supernatural belief, suggesting there is no link between the two.
Awww. No atheist brain powers. :'( Just good ol' fashioned skepticism.
QuoteThe findings suggest religious belief is a product of socio-cultural factors, such as upbringing and education.
Stop the presses!
Yes, babies are an oppressed minority. They must be allowed to choose to be born or not, and choose their own parents ;-)
From some of my reading about feral children, it seems they have no god-belief until they are taught it. It's been a while since I've looked at that material, but I do seem to recall that about them.
Quote from: Unbeliever on November 10, 2017, 01:53:58 PM
From some of my reading about feral children, it seems they have no god-belief until they are taught it. It's been a while since I've looked at that material, but I do seem to recall that about them.
We are all born atheists. Religion has to be taught. Otherwise, we would all be randomly of some religious beliefs or none. And we are mostly the beliefs of our parents.
That’s a long speech for a chihuahua ;-)
I think that some people are born with the desire for a superior being (daddy complex), but not everyone. The people who are born with a desire for daddy go looking for it and find it or else they make it up ( did you ever listen to the description of god from some one who is spiritual but not religious?). Those who arent born with daddy complex don’t go looking for it. and they dont find it.
Maybe Cavebear would be religious if he had been forced to learn it. Maybe not. My great grandpa was an evangelist. my grandpa a pastor. I kinda got forced to learn it. Even though now I can say I wasnt one of those people born with that desire I still learned what religion had to say. Everytime religion was called into question I brushed aside critical thinking by saying that I was at fault not the religion. Its easy to do when the people you go to church with all see “the presence of god in their life†and constantly claiming to get their prayers answered.
The Christian religion gives you ways to make up excuses to yourself about why reality doesnt line up with the dogma. Of course the priests and pastors even give sermons on reasons your reality is different that you didnt think about
Quote from: Unbeliever on November 10, 2017, 01:53:58 PM
From some of my reading about feral children, it seems they have no god-belief until they are taught it. It's been a while since I've looked at that material, but I do seem to recall that about them.
Extreme psychology examples, do not the norm prove. Beat a kid everyday ... and that proves what?
Quote from: fencerider on November 11, 2017, 02:04:26 AM
That’s a long speech for a chihuahua ;-)
I think that some people are born with the desire for a superior being (daddy complex), but not everyone. The people who are born with a desire for daddy go looking for it and find it or else they make it up ( did you ever listen to the description of god from some one who is spiritual but not religious?). Those who arent born with daddy complex don’t go looking for it. and they dont find it.
Maybe Cavebear would be religious if he had been forced to learn it. Maybe not. My great grandpa was an evangelist. my grandpa a pastor. I kinda got forced to learn it. Even though now I can say I wasnt one of those people born with that desire I still learned what religion had to say. Everytime religion was called into question I brushed aside critical thinking by saying that I was at fault not the religion. Its easy to do when the people you go to church with all see “the presence of god in their life†and constantly claiming to get their prayers answered.
The Christian religion gives you ways to make up excuses to yourself about why reality doesnt line up with the dogma. Of course the priests and pastors even give sermons on reasons your reality is different that you didnt think about
I assume that, if I had been religiously taught from childhood, I might be religious. OR it might have been more of a struggle to escape.
Either way, I would not be the person I am today.
But my point remains that to be religious, you have to be taught to be.
And I don't ignore the gradual development of religion among our ancestors. They had less knowledge of natural events than we do. Lightning was fearsome, storms were fearsome, volcanoes were fearsome, eclipses were fearsome.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 11, 2017, 05:00:30 AM
I assume that, if I had been religiously taught from childhood, I might be religious. OR it might have been more of a struggle to escape.
Either way, I would not be the person I am today.
But my point remains that to be religious, you have to be taught to be.
And I don't ignore the gradual development of religion among our ancestors. They had less knowledge of natural events than we do. Lightning was fearsome, storms were fearsome, volcanoes were fearsome, eclipses were fearsome.
Lots of ways to be taught. For American kids, either TV or the other kids, are more influential than parents or teachers. I escaped to the library with Mr Atos.
Quote from: Baruch on November 11, 2017, 02:24:22 PM
Lots of ways to be taught. For American kids, either TV or the other kids, are more influential than parents or teachers. I escaped to the library with Mr Atos.
I was the youngest child to ever get a library card where I lived. At 10 I was reading "young adult" sci-fi and middle school history. At 14 the librarian was bring in books from surrounding libraries. Mr Atos came later.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 11, 2017, 02:28:22 PM
I was the youngest child to ever get a library card where I lived. At 10 I was reading "young adult" sci-fi and middle school history. At 14 the librarian was bring in books from surrounding libraries. Mr Atos came later.
See, we were Siamese Twins separated at birth, if you please, or if you don't please ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RG5mOd8Ubsk
You are talking to a person who loves Siamese cats... Not those, but these.
I think children are naturally atheistic. They don't have to be told to grow out of believing in Santa Claus. They do it once they reach an age where their natural skepticism kicks in. But when their parents keep on believing in God, it interferes with natural rationality because children learn by imitation.
Quote from: Telesio on November 15, 2017, 10:37:38 AM
I think children are naturally atheistic. They don't have to be told to grow out of believing in Santa Claus. They do it once they reach an age where their natural skepticism kicks in. But when their parents keep on believing in God, it interferes with natural rationality because children learn by imitation.
I agree, Telisio. You have to learn to hate and fear, and religion is basically fear.
As Cable said in South Pacific...
"You've got to be taught
To hate and fear,
You've got to be taught
From year to year,
It's got to be drummed
In your dear little ear
You've got to be carefully taught.
You've got to be taught to be afraid
Of people whose eyes are oddly made,
And people whose skin is a diff'rent shade,
You've got to be carefully taught."
Quote from: Telesio on November 15, 2017, 10:37:38 AM
I think children are naturally atheistic. They don't have to be told to grow out of believing in Santa Claus. They do it once they reach an age where their natural skepticism kicks in. But when their parents keep on believing in God, it interferes with natural rationality because children learn by imitation.
Children learn by imitation. From adults. All adults are former children. The original adults were savage cave men. It still shows. If they don't learn everything from their parents now, they are learning all the rest from other adults.
Man in their natural environment, have very little culture, they can't afford it. It takes leisure, and even better, inequality concentrate the leisure, so that culture forms. Religion is a cultural item. So yes, I think that cave men had very little religion. But as best as evidence can show, we have been minimally religious for a long time. Religion didn't get really going until the Neolithic, provided enough leisure.
Like your old style avatar. Gotta be pre Win 95, right? ;-) Is it Montaigne?
Quote from: Baruch on November 15, 2017, 07:39:41 PM
Like your old style avatar. Gotta be pre Win 95, right? ;-) Is it Montaigne?
No, it's Bernardino Telesio, one of the early pioneers of the scientific method.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernardino_Telesio
Quote from: Telesio on November 15, 2017, 11:58:07 PM
No, it's Bernardino Telesio, one of the early pioneers of the scientific method.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernardino_Telesio
Thanks. The obvious usually trips me up. So ... after Buridan, Tartaglia, but before Galileo. There was a lot of ferment in the 1500s, and it wasn't all in wine vats ;-) And exciting historical period, 1450-1550, then on to the 1550-1650 period.
It would seem he continued the work of Pliny the Elder and John Philoponus ;-) It took a lot of brass to oppose Aristotelianism. For a time, Aristotelianism was opposed in the Church (and other Abrahamic religions). "The Theology of Aristotle" was mistakenly ascribed to Aristotle, but was actually neo-Platonic. Church theology was neo-Platonic from early times, so Aristotle the Platonist got his nose into the Western Church in particular, thanks to translations in Spain. It was later discovered that "The Theology of Aristotle" was not by Aristotle, and Aristotle became properly studied on his own. This caused a quick reaction to expel Aristotelianism from the universities (including even Aquinas). The anti-Aristotelian reaction was successful in Islam ... but failed in Judaism and Western Christianity. Moses Maimonides was fought by the Kabbalists (neo-Platonists) but kept his reputation as the father of Jewish medicine. There was no Western doctor like him until Paracelsus. Dominicans and Jesuits accepted Aristotelianism, and their dominance helped Aristotelianism survive attack as a heresy.
However ... in context, early criticism of Scholasticism aka Aristotelianism ... probably was tinged with neo-Platonism. The idea of physical law that exists outside of G-d's arbitrary will ... is neo-Platonic. And in a way, this Telesio preceded Stevin more than Galileo.
QuoteThe author claimed the reason people continue to be believe it because 'they haven't thought that hard about it'.
Christians claim to have thought about their religion to a great extent, but mostly this is based on not knowing the difference between stewing, taking offense, delighting in being loved or punished depending on whether it's you or the other guy. Such mental wheel-spinning should not be confused with rational thought. It occupies mental "space", but it's not really thinking. I suppose you could argue that such mindless ruminations are thinking since they are a form of thought, but there is an ocean of difference between these two forms of "thought."
What they call intuition is probably more accurately characterized as hypnotism, indoctrination, or just learning by imitation. If you are in a Pentecostal church, you see people babbling and receiving positive feedback for it. You get the hang of it and then try it yourself. Now you are talking in tongues and getting pats on the back for being spiritual. You observe people all simultaneously falling down when Benny Hinn points his finger at them. You simply do the same. People learn by imitating other people.
Quote from: Baruch on November 11, 2017, 02:24:19 AM
Extreme psychology examples, do not the norm prove. Beat a kid everyday ... and that proves what?
This seems to me to be a non sequitur - what does it have to do with my post?
Quote from: SGOS on November 16, 2017, 08:25:09 AM
Christians claim to have thought about their religion to a great extent, but mostly this is based on not knowing the difference between stewing, taking offense, delighting in being loved or punished depending on whether it's you or the other guy. Such mental wheel-spinning should not be confused with rational thought. It occupies mental "space", but it's not really thinking. I suppose you could argue that such mindless ruminations are thinking since they are a form of thought, but there is an ocean of difference between these two forms of "thought."
You are describing the difference between Plato and Aristotle. This is why, when Christians etc really wanted to think, in the Middle Ages, they thought of Aristotle.
Quote from: Telesio on November 16, 2017, 10:43:40 AM
What they call intuition is probably more accurately characterized as hypnotism, indoctrination, or just learning by imitation. If you are in a Pentecostal church, you see people babbling and receiving positive feedback for it. You get the hang of it and then try it yourself. Now you are talking in tongues and getting pats on the back for being spiritual. You observe people all simultaneously falling down when Benny Hinn points his finger at them. You simply do the same. People learn by imitating other people.
Two interesting points ... the Church was originally Jewish Charismatic ... and "intellectus" meant intuition. It is the Enlightenment rewrite of the dictionary, that has confused things.
Quote from: Unbeliever on November 16, 2017, 01:13:16 PM
This seems to me to be a non sequitur - what does it have to do with my post?
You said ... "From some of my reading about feral children ..." ... that is like the folk tales of wild boys in the woods (see Peter Pan also) ... or the stories of Pharaoh trying to raise a child without any human contact, to see what language it would speak ... extreme indeed. Tell me about normal children, how they develop ...
Normal children are all born non-believers in deities, too.
Quote from: Unbeliever on November 16, 2017, 07:13:56 PM
Normal children are all born non-believers in deities, too.
That would be an acceptable claim. I think you meant it that way the first time, but misused "feral". But children, as they develop, often have invisible friends. Is this due to adults or other children?
Neither - it's due to the fact that they're still connected to the spirit world...
Quote from: Unbeliever on November 16, 2017, 07:23:20 PM
Neither - it's due to the fact that they're still connected to the spirit world...
May you never lose your inner child ... or you will be like pr126.
Quote from: Unbeliever on November 16, 2017, 07:23:20 PM
Neither - it's due to the fact that they're still connected to the spirit world...
And "The Spirit World" is just one step up from simple superstition.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 18, 2017, 03:51:06 AM
And "The Spirit World" is just one step up from simple superstition.
Babies are too young for superstition. And you aren't an ubermensch either.
I suppose superstition (black cats) doesn't require spirits though ... one could view "luck" as impersonal. Or you could view black cats as familiars of witches. Is an impersonal view of irrational ... less developed than the more personal kind? I would think the other way around, from the atheist POV. First Goddess Luck, then just "luck". The third stage is "broke".
Quote from: Baruch on November 18, 2017, 09:55:18 AM
Babies are too young for superstition. And you aren't an ubermensch either.
I suppose superstition (black cats) doesn't require spirits though ... one could view "luck" as impersonal. Or you could view black cats as familiars of witches. Is an impersonal view of irrational ... less developed than the more personal kind? I would think the other way around, from the atheist POV. First Goddess Luck, then just "luck". The third stage is "broke".
Claptrap.
Cat furcolor is nearly random and means nothing.
Luck is merely a random event; a local outlier of statistics.
Atheists view random events as neither lucky or unlucky.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 26, 2017, 05:14:23 AM
Claptrap.
Cat furcolor is nearly random and means nothing.
Luck is merely a random event; a local outlier of statistics.
Atheists view random events as neither lucky or unlucky.
Must be why there are no atheists in foxholes or casinos ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on November 26, 2017, 11:42:38 AM
Must be why there are no atheists in foxholes or casinos ;-)
There have always been atheists in foxholes. Fewer in casinos though, as atheists tend to know the House always wins. We do math. While my religious friends were spending money on lottery tickets, I (and other atheists) invested in the stock markets when it made sense.
I had religious co-workers who were always broke, hoping and praying for luck. They are still broke. I'm not.
Quote from: Cavebear on December 23, 2017, 05:26:41 AM
There have always been atheists in foxholes. Fewer in casinos though, as atheists tend to know the House always wins. We do math. While my religious friends were spending money on lottery tickets, I (and other atheists) invested in the stock markets when it made sense.
I had religious co-workers who were always broke, hoping and praying for luck. They are still broke. I'm not.
1. It helps to work for a living
2. It helps to not spend equal to or more than your income
It is harder to do either, than moralists moralize about.
Quote from: Baruch on December 23, 2017, 06:39:31 AM
1. It helps to work for a living
2. It helps to not spend equal to or more than your income
It is harder to do either, than moralists moralize about.
I started sub-minimum wage at a gas station where the manager sucked the register and then docked my pay for the shortages. Then got a minimum wage job in a department store and advanced to managing 1/4 of the store for 15 cents an hour more in exchange for working holidays.
Don't tell ME about "moralizing" about work!
Quote from: Cavebear on December 23, 2017, 08:12:04 AM
I started sub-minimum wage at a gas station where the manager sucked the register and then docked my pay for the shortages. Then got a minimum wage job in a department store and advanced to managing 1/4 of the store for 15 cents an hour more in exchange for working holidays.
Don't tell ME about "moralizing" about work!
It is best for young people to start as janitor, not as senior VP in their dad's company. That way when they do become senior VP some day, they can appreciate what the janitor does.
Quote from: Baruch on December 23, 2017, 11:11:57 AM
It is best for young people to start as janitor, not as senior VP in their dad's company. That way when they do become senior VP some day, they can appreciate what the janitor does.
Not on Republican wages he won't!
Quote from: Cavebear on December 23, 2017, 01:21:46 PM
Not on Republican wages he won't!
Sorry, since when are Republicans responsible for anything? That is part of the bi-partisan cat-food commission.
Quote from: Baruch on December 23, 2017, 01:44:13 PM
Sorry, since when are Republicans responsible for anything? That is part of the bi-partisan cat-food commission.
Yeah not much. Just the increasing deficit, unqualified judges, elimination of regulations to control environmental pillaging. That sort of thing.