Analytical thinking could damage your faith, according to recent research.

From the Los Angeles Times report:

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.

More at

http://www.latimes.c...mailed Stories)

I don't think it's quite accurate to equate 'religious' or rather 'superstitious' thinking and intuition. At least, I know nonreligious intuitive people who would be offended at the suggestion that their abilities were anything beyond rationally founded, though possibly subconscious, processes.

And all too often I find that it is the religious thinking that interferes with the brain work, rather than the other way round... if thinking damages thoughtless, destructive faith- what a breakthrough that might be.

Why would analytic thinking damage your belief? The supposed 'test question' is a trick question, not a test of intuition.

Analytic thinking, when applied to philosophical and religious questions, simply divides those which we can explain from those we can't. For example, I believe in the existence of God. I cannot explain this by analytic reasoning, nor do I expect to; my reasoning tells me that, if there is a God, He is far beyond my comprehension, and that therefore I will not be able to 'explain' Him.

I would like to be able to explain why evil exists, for example, but I can't; does this imply that evil actually does not exist at all? I don't think so; it simply means that the reason is beyond my powers of reasoning. Intuition kicks in when reason can't do the job.

From the excerpt quoted, it appears that people who approach issues analytically are less likely to have a great deal of faith in things that cannot be explained analytically. The title to the thread implies that analytical thinking may reduce one's faith, but that was not addressed in the excerpt quoted.

What would have been more relevant would have been to take a number of subjects who, on questioning, showed faith in something, and then divide them according to whether they answered a series of questions based on intuition or analysis, and then requestion their faith to see if that had changed, and whether there was a correlation with the level of analysis demonstrated during the questions.

Anyway, I doubt that many people will take advantage of this thread to keep to themselves their prejudices regarding religion, but we can always hope

SC

From the excerpt quoted, it appears that people who approach issues analytically are less likely to have a great deal of faith in things that cannot be explained analytically. The title to the thread implies that analytical thinking may reduce one's faith, but that was not addressed in the excerpt quoted.

What would have been more relevant would have been to take a number of subjects who, on questioning, showed faith in something, and then divide them according to whether they answered a series of questions based on intuition or analysis, and then requestion their faith to see if that had changed, and whether there was a correlation with the level of analysis demonstrated during the questions.

Anyway, I doubt that many people will take advantage of this thread to keep to themselves their prejudices regarding religion, but we can always hope

SC

Some of us can hope that prejudices against religion can also be kept to themselves.

I always enjoyed a latin mass...if only to see the pious looks on the faces of the congregation. A lovely event....especially as its almost entirely visual for most people.

I always enjoyed a latin mass...if only to see the pious looks on the faces of the congregation. A lovely event....especially as its almost entirely visual for most people.

I think that's a bit unkind, Smokie; we did have bilingual missals, you know. The great thing about the Latin mass was its universality; you could go to a Mass anywhere in the world, and it was just like your mass at home. And of course, a sung Mass was even better. A fig for analytic reasoning!

EDIT: Followed my own advice

I always enjoyed a latin mass...if only to see the pious looks on the faces of the congregation. A lovely event....especially as its almost entirely visual for most people.

I think that's a bit unkind, Smokie; we did have bilingual missals, you know. The great thing about the Latin mass was its universality; you could go to a Mass anywhere in the world, and it was just like your mass at home. And of course, a sung Mass was even better. A fig for analytic reasoning!

Yes but your lack of understanding of the mass didn't mean you could avoid paying your dues. The priests always manage to speak the local language when it comes time to collect.

Analytical thinking...yes....its proving the death of religion in Western circles.

Edit: Please don't get me wrong...its a fine spectacle but I guess I belong to the other group of thinkers.

I always enjoyed a latin mass...if only to see the pious looks on the faces of the congregation. A lovely event....especially as its almost entirely visual for most people.

I think that's a bit unkind, Smokie; we did have bilingual missals, you know. The great thing about the Latin mass was its universality; you could go to a Mass anywhere in the world, and it was just like your mass at home. And of course, a sung Mass was even better. A fig for analytic reasoning!

Yes but your lack of understanding of the mass didn't mean you could avoid paying your dues. The priests always manage to speak the local language when it comes time to collect.

Analytical thinking...yes....its proving the death of religion in Western circles.

Edit: Please don't get me wrong...its a fine spectacle but I guess I belong to the other group of thinkers.

I don't think there was a 'lack of understanding'. Of course the priests speak the local language; how could they help people otherwise? And inevitably, if you run a church, there are costs and the money has to come from somewhere. As in all walks of life, some people are greedy and others are not.

Analytical thinking doesn't control our lives, I hope; doesn't emotion have a place too? When I see posts on TV criticising religion, there's plenty of emotion in them; can there not be emotion on the other side? Not everything in our lives is rational, thank God!

Everyone has to make their own decision. I make my position clear, but I don't go out of my way, like some people, to slang the opposition.

Everyone has to make their own decision. I make my position clear, but I don't go out of my way, like some people, to slang the opposition.

Very well said, IB

I got the math question wrong, so I'm probably not a very clear analytical thinker; however I don't really see analysis as harmful to development of religious positions. I think my own attempts to analyse the validity of propositions about the source and cause of existence and phenomena has taken me from theism to deism to theological non-cognitivism, and now, perhaps, back to a kind of deism, but drawing on Hindu rather than Abrahamic teaching. I'm more "religious" in this sense than I was a year ago.

I note that the very well known atheist philosopher Antony Flew moved to a deist position in his latter days. Having analysed theism to the nth and rejected it actively in his writing for many years he found, towards the end of his life, that some kind of "God", as the underpinning consciousness that gives rise to phenomena and universal natural laws, became undeniable.

http://www.deism.com...eisttodeist.htm

For example, I believe in the existence of God. I cannot explain this by analytic reasoning, nor do I expect to; my reasoning tells me that, if there is a God, He is far beyond my comprehension, and that therefore I will not be able to 'explain' Him.

God very well might be beyond our comprehension, but mere men who pretend to know God and tell others how to live aren't. I believe I understand them perfectly.

God very well might be beyond our comprehension, but mere men who pretend to know God and tell others how to live aren't. I believe I understand them perfectly.

That sounds suspiciously like judging the messenger, not the message! Not a good practice on the whole.

God very well might be beyond our comprehension, but mere men who pretend to know God and tell others how to live aren't. I believe I understand them perfectly.

That sounds suspiciously like judging the messenger, not the message! Not a good practice on the whole.

I thought it was quite clever, actually.

It only judges those who claim unjustifiably and arrogantly to know the ways and wishes of a Supreme Being.

But where does that leave the Prophets, who claim to speak with the voice of God, but usually only to admonish or warn? Are we more likely to question the authority of institutionalized priests, prelates and popes than that of the humble, inspired (crazed?), and frequently imprisoned, tortured and killed cassandras like Amos and Jeremiah?

But what of the false prophets? The televangelists with their expensive suits and perfect hair and whitened teeth and excruciating ignorance of the things they claim to know so much about? I reckon these guys would be in Koheesti's sights.

If, however, we genuinely intuit or are led by analysis to belief in the fundamental presence of some transcendental Being, we are bound to make inferences, to see implications and to draw conclusions from that belief. I don't see a problem with that, as long as one is aware of its tentativeness (we don't "know") and doesn't try to force it on others.

I can't do math at all (unless its working out discouts at the store ) but I am not religious and have no "faith". So maybe some people are just bad at math?

God very well might be beyond our comprehension, but mere men who pretend to know God and tell others how to live aren't. I believe I understand them perfectly.

That sounds suspiciously like judging the messenger, not the message! Not a good practice on the whole.

I thought it was quite clever, actually.

It only judges those who claim unjustifiably and arrogantly to know the ways and wishes of a Supreme Being.

But where does that leave the Prophets, who claim to speak with the voice of God, but usually only to admonish or warn? Are we more likely to question the authority of institutionalized priests, prelates and popes than that of the humble, inspired (crazed?), and frequently imprisoned, tortured and killed cassandras like Amos and Jeremiah?

But what of the false prophets? The televangelists with their expensive suits and perfect hair and whitened teeth and excruciating ignorance of the things they claim to know so much about? I reckon these guys would be in Koheesti's sights.

If, however, we genuinely intuit or are led by analysis to belief in the fundamental presence of some transcendental Being, we are bound to make inferences, to see implications and to draw conclusions from that belief. I don't see a problem with that, as long as one is aware of its tentativeness (we don't "know") and doesn't try to force it on others.

I'm not sure Koheesti was being so discriminating, but let that pass.

I agree especially with your last two paras, Xangsamhua. God deliver us from televangelists (He will).

I'm not quite sure how maths got into this... maybe the trick question in OP. What is needed is analytical reasoning; that gets you so far. You need faith to go the extra mile.

Just the notion that people who can do the math problem must be analytical and those who can't aren't.

Koheesti sums it up nicely. I have no problem with anyone following a religious path but organised religion gives me the creeps.

SBK, good call about the limited scope of the correlation with analytical capability!

If you think that was a maths problem, how on earth did you manage before we had decimal currency?

Some of us are wise, and some of us are stupid... but often the wise are the stupidest of all. People have written volumes on this topic, and yet here we are trying to deal with it in soundbites.

If you think that was a maths problem, how on earth did you manage before we had decimal currency?

Some of us are wise, and some of us are stupid... but often the wise are the stupidest of all. People have written volumes on this topic, and yet here we are trying to deal with it in soundbites.

Most of it biased from one viewpoint or another. I think this is one people must decide upon for themselves. Unfortunately indoctrination of one sort or another begins young.

Why do you think that is isanbirder?

God very well might be beyond our comprehension, but mere men who pretend to know God and tell others how to live aren't. I believe I understand them perfectly.

That sounds suspiciously like judging the messenger, not the message! Not a good practice on the whole.

I am judging the messenger if the messenger claims to know what any supreme being wants. And the judgement I pass is that they are full of sh*t. I was raised Catholic and I still don't believe any Pope ever talked to God, knows what I need to do in order to get to heaven or that reciting all the "Hail Mary"s in the world will make up for my screw-ups.

I consider one's faith to be a private, personal affair and am sure organized religion started as a scam by man to gain control over others. Over the centuries true believers have moved into leadership roles so I don't believe they are "all in on it". I am a big believer in faith and if someone needs an organised religion to make them feel better, that's their personal choice. I'll respect someone's choice to join a church, believe in reincarnation as a wood sprite, whatever - just don't try to force your belief on anyone else. I dislike people like Bill Maher who brutally insult people who do follow one of these religions I believe started as a scam. That's not a reason to insult believers - getting high ratings is however.

But if people had to have only one rule to live by, it should be to treat others as you would want others to treat you. You can throw out all the crap about not eating certain foods, covering your face, not working on certain days, stoning someone to death for whatever reason, having to accept Jesus Christ as your one and only Savior, etc.

If you think that was a maths problem, how on earth did you manage before we had decimal currency?

Some of us are wise, and some of us are stupid... but often the wise are the stupidest of all. People have written volumes on this topic, and yet here we are trying to deal with it in soundbites.

Most of it biased from one viewpoint or another. I think this is one people must decide upon for themselves. Unfortunately indoctrination of one sort or another begins young.

Why do you think that is isanbirder?

First, my reference to pre-decimal currency wasn't a red herring; it was intended to show that analytical reasoning can be subconscious. People coped with the intricate system of currency, measurements etc. remarkably well.

Why the indoctrination of the young? Because every parent thinks they know what is best for their child, and if it's a matter of eternal life or damnation, they want to make quite sure their child doesn't miss out.

God very well might be beyond our comprehension, but mere men who pretend to know God and tell others how to live aren't. I believe I understand them perfectly.

That sounds suspiciously like judging the messenger, not the message! Not a good practice on the whole.

I am judging the messenger if the messenger claims to know what any supreme being wants. And the judgement I pass is that they are full of sh*t. I was raised Catholic and I still don't believe any Pope ever talked to God, knows what I need to do in order to get to heaven or that reciting all the "Hail Mary"s in the world will make up for my screw-ups.

I consider one's faith to be a private, personal affair and am sure organized religion started as a scam by man to gain control over others. Over the centuries true believers have moved into leadership roles so I don't believe they are "all in on it". I am a big believer in faith and if someone needs an organised religion to make them feel better, that's their personal choice. I'll respect someone's choice to join a church, believe in reincarnation as a wood sprite, whatever - just don't try to force your belief on anyone else. I dislike people like Bill Maher who brutally insult people who do follow one of these religions I believe started as a scam. That's not a reason to insult believers - getting high ratings is however.

But if people had to have only one rule to live by, it should be to treat others as you would want others to treat you. You can throw out all the crap about not eating certain foods, covering your face, not working on certain days, stoning someone to death for whatever reason, having to accept Jesus Christ as your one and only Savior, etc.

Nice post, Koheesti.

Obviously there are bits of it I don't agree with (especially the last phrase!), but I'm not going to argue.

The part in bold is known as The Golden Rule. In St Matthew's Gospel, Jesus says of it, This is the law and the prophets. It also occurs in a slightly different form in Confucius and Aristotle.

The Golden rule eh? Well i can live with that. Something here we can at least agree upon.

The part in bold is known as The Golden Rule. In St Matthew's Gospel, Jesus says of it, This is the law and the prophets. It also occurs in a slightly different form in Confucius and Aristotle.

That's probably why it's known as the "Golden Rule", it's a common sense "rule" across the world, one everyone can understand without being told that they should do it because some supreme being said so. One that kids should easily be able to grasp. Unfortunately, the adults teaching the kids need to follow and believe in it before you can expect the kids to learn from them.

Most of it biased from one viewpoint or another. I think this is one people must decide upon for themselves. Unfortunately indoctrination of one sort or another begins young.

Why do you think that is isanbirder?

Why the indoctrination of the young? Because every parent thinks they know what is best for their child, and if it's a matter of eternal life or damnation, they want to make quite sure their child doesn't miss out.

Speaking of indoctrination of the youth, I'm for it. Well, to a point anyway. I don't have kids. But I ask a lot of my friends with kids, friends who aren't religious, how they plan to teach their kids about religion? In my opinion, they need exposure while under the parent's care so they don't get sucked in later. If a child isn't exposed to any religion at an early age, I wonder if when they grow up (late teens, early 20's) they are more likely to come home after joining a cult, thinking they discovered something great. If a person is exposed to religion at a younger age, they can make more informed decisions about it later as adults. Well, that is if they have any analytical thinking to speak of.

Most of it biased from one viewpoint or another. I think this is one people must decide upon for themselves. Unfortunately indoctrination of one sort or another begins young.

Why do you think that is isanbirder?

Why the indoctrination of the young? Because every parent thinks they know what is best for their child, and if it's a matter of eternal life or damnation, they want to make quite sure their child doesn't miss out.

Speaking of indoctrination of the youth, I'm for it. Well, to a point anyway. I don't have kids. But I ask a lot of my friends with kids, friends who aren't religious, how they plan to teach their kids about religion? In my opinion, they need exposure while under the parent's care so they don't get sucked in later. If a child isn't exposed to any religion at an early age, I wonder if when they grow up (late teens, early 20's) they are more likely to come home after joining a cult, thinking they discovered something great. If a person is exposed to religion at a younger age, they can make more informed decisions about it later as adults. Well, that is if they have any analytical thinking to speak of.

You better hope your kids don't fall under the spell while they are in their rebellious phase then koheesti!

The Golden Rule is, of course, also a re-statement of the second of Jesus' two commandments (Love God, and Love thy neighbour). The first commandment depends on faith, the second, as Koheesti says, on common sense.

Alas, so many people don't have any common sense!