Thinking Can Undermine Religious Faith, Study Finds

[JurgenG]

Those who think more analytically are less inclined to be religious believers than are those who tend to follow a gut instinct, researchers conclude.

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.

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-religion-analytical-thinking-20120427,0,5374010.story

I don't think it's true for Buddhism, actually quite the opposite. What is your experience ?

[Xangsamhua]

I think analysis is appropriate when engaging with the Buddha's/Buddhist teachings, but I've been told often enough that I/we shouldn't think too much, that meditation is what really counts and that one can discover the truth purely subjectively (in a meditative state).

I agree that meditation is essential, but believe that seeking wisdom requires analysis as well.

That meditation leads by subjective means to objective knowledge doesn't sound right to me, but I'm prepared to work with it.

Whether an analytical approach actually weakens one's religious faith I suspect is not true for Buddhism. It probably just weakens dogmatic faith - not so much the faith, but the dogmatism. Of course, if Buddhist faith is dependent on purely speculative dogma and wishful thinking, then analytical thinking will find that difficult, but it isn't, is it?

Edited May 8, 2012 by Xangsamhua

[TongueThaied]

Pretty much a "no brainer," I would say. As in those who believe in magic stuff because they don't think have no brains. But to each his own . . .

As for Buddhism, did you mean "Thai Buddhism," or what Siddhartha taught? Thinking would destroy Thai Buddhism as it is filled with mysticism, magic and superstition. What Siddhartha taught isn't even religion; its philosophy. His teachings are also completely ignored by mainstream Thai Buddhism. But then Christians don't pay much heed to what Jesus taught, nor muslims to the teachings of Mohammed. Nothing new there.

Edited May 9, 2012 by TongueThaied

[kennalder]

Once again proving, if you don't put a beer survey in your post you won't get much response. You can substitute beer survey with best pizza, best hamburger, or anything to do with sex and you will get pages of replies. Surely that must say something about religious conviction among the readers, but I'm not sure what.

[JurgenG]

Once again proving, if you don't put a beer survey in your post you won't get much response. You can substitute beer survey with best pizza, best hamburger, or anything to do with sex and you will get pages of replies. Surely that must say something about religious conviction among the readers, but I'm not sure what.

I'm not looking for quantity, I would have phrase the question differently and post it in the "general" forum.

I'm genuinely curious.

For me Buddhism is the 4 Noble Truths and you build from that using your own reasoning . So analytical thinking is no threat to that, it's actually the basis. But some people may think differently, just want to hear their opinion

[camerata]

I think a lot of it depends on how strongly one was "socialized" into religion as a kid.I know devout Thai Buddhists who are otherwise good at analytical thinking.

A Western Buddhist who is agnostic about unconditioned nibbana, literal rebirth, karma across multiple lifetimes and different realms of existence isn't really a "religious believer" as mentioned in the article.

[rockyysdt]

Kalama Sutta:

• Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing,
  
• nor upon tradition,
  
• nor upon rumor,
  
• nor upon what is in a scripture,
  
• nor upon surmise,
  
• nor upon an axiom,
  
• nor upon specious reasoning,
  
• nor upon abias towards a notion that has been pondered over,
  
• nor upon another's seeming ability,
  
• nor upon the consideration, "The monk is our teacher."
  
• Kalamas, when you yourselves know: "These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness," enter on and abide in them.'
  

I'd say this would require an element of thinking as well as testing.

Edited May 9, 2012 by rockyysdt

[huli]

Some say, and sounds reasonable to me, that a bit of faith is required at the outset of adopting the Buddhist Path to get one going, and also that specifically the belief in Nirvana requires faith. Other than those two exceptions, only rational logic, common sense and intuition are enough to foster belief in essential Buddhism (Noble Truths, 8-fold Path).

Edited May 9, 2012 by huli

[rockyysdt]

What Siddhartha taught isn't even religion; its philosophy.

Are you sure about that?

Although much of the Buddhist practice is rewarding on many levels, you must have "Right View" in order to correctly follow it.

"Right View" includes acceptance of the existence of Gods (Devas), Devils & Demons, immortality through re birth, and, ultimately salvation from eternal suffering (Samsara) through "right view", & "right practice".

These elements require belief and can only be described as religious until tested.

One either has a religion or has the truth.

All religions remain religions until proven true.

Edited May 9, 2012 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

Some say, and sounds reasonable to me, that a bit of faith is required at the outset of adopting the Buddhist Path to get one going, and also that specifically the belief in Nirvana requires faith. Other than those two exceptions, only rational logic, common sense and intuition are enough to foster belief in essential Buddhism (Noble Truths, 8-fold Path).

But wouldn't you then travel without "right view", which contains many more things requiring belief (religion)?

[NomadJoe]

I can't say I am surprised at all by this study. It's exactly what I have always assumed. This is similar to another study which showed that the the more intelligent the person, the less likely they are to believe in God. --> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-less-likely-to-believe-in-God.html

Here an interesting Wiki entry discusses the many studies showing the level of a persons intelligence is indirectly proportionate to their self described level of religiosity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence

I once tried reading Richard Dawkins The God Delusion, but found that his arguments were so simplistic and obvious to me that I couldn't continue. His points were clear to me as an 10 year old child. I remember the first time I realized that grown adults believed in God. I still remember the sinking feeling I had. As a child I considered God no more real than the Easter Bunny, The Tooth Fairy, and Santa Clause. I realized then that my previously perceived perfect universe was in trouble. Up to that point religion/church was to me simply a place where troubled kids went on Sundays for bible study or the place my family went on the occasional Chistmas midnight mass where a guy tried to cheer people up and explain life. It made me very uncomfortable. Like the feeling you get from a used car salesman. Every debate I have ever had with a non-athiest uses circular logic, or no logic, always comes back to faith, and ultimately falls flat on it's face every time.

So anyway, Dawkins would ask how can all religions be right, he would point out the fact that people that were raised in a religious family of a certain denomination would believe the same as the family, just as I was raised in a non-practicing catholic essentially atheistic family thus I am not religious. Dawkins would say the concept of God started as a way to explain the apparently unexplainable, give purpose to our lives, and comfort us when loved ones died, and ultimately religion could be used to control the masses. Not really debatable, all of it.

God or Gods in any incarnation that is imagined by man is just that, imagination. If He exists, his existence, which I doubt, He is far beyond our miniscule ability to comprehend. I don't want to sound like I'm bagging on religion. It does a lot of good for a lot of people. I think people should be free to imagine whatever they want. They can believe in the flying speghetti monster for all I care. It's just when silly notions of what is and should be start making their way into policy that things get scary. I'll leave that for another discussion.

Ricky Gervais describes things well: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ricky+gervais+religion+bible+comedy+part+1&oq=ricky+gervais+religion&aq=3&aqi=g7g-m1&aql=&gs_l=youtube-psuggest.1.3.0l7j0i5.87676.96846.0.100147.22.17.0.5.5.1.405.4037.1j6j5j4j1.17.0...0.0.

SB

[huli]

What Siddhartha taught isn't even religion; its philosophy.

Are you sure about that?

Although much of the Buddhist practice is rewarding on many levels, you must have "Right View" in order to correctly follow it.

"Right View" includes acceptance of the existence of Gods (Devas), Devils & Demons, immortality through re birth, and, ultimately salvation from eternal suffering (Samsara) through "right view", & "right practice".

These elements require belief and can only be described as religious until tested.

One either has a religion or has the truth.

All religions remain religions until proven true.

Buddhism can be considered a religion, a philosophy, an Art of Living, or even a culture, according to Buddhadasa's Handbook for Mankind. Whether or not it is a religion to any one person would depend on the definition of "religion" to that person, but it makes sense to many people. You seem to have an unusual definition of religion being "that which is not true". Having a conversation about religion seems problematic with this definition.

Your working definition of Right View as including the acceptance of Divas, Devils, and Demons is likewise unusual. There are any number of Buddhist scholars who would never need to use those 'D' words or the conceptions they represent to explain Right View. I urge you to seek them out. Or maybe just Google it. Those 'D' fellows have nothing to do with the core of Buddhism, namely, in this instance, the Right View of the 8-Fold Path.

Words have meanings, and real dialogue can either debate what they mean, or, once that is decided, use them as tools for communication.

[Xangsamhua]

http://en.wikipedia....nd_intelligence

A rather limited graph, covering IQ range from "Extremely Low" ("Mild mental retardation") to "Average". It would be interesting to see what the data tell us for people of above average and high intelligence.

So I had a quick look, and couldn't find anything that extended the vertical axis (IQ) much higher than 110. There is some data to the effect that very small percentages of members of the Royal Society or the American National Academy of Sciences professed a belief in God, but is that due to their high IQ or to the contexts of their lives and the kind of people they spend their time with? We are all vulnerable to Groupthink, and I suspect (from observation) that academics in some fields (e.g. sciences and social sciences) are no less vulnerable than, say, accountants, engineers, carpenters or process workers.

I suspect that religious faith of the kind assumed by the data gatherers reported in googled sites would be weaker among people of high intelligence (as measured by IQ, i.e."post-scientific operational thinking"). However, simple belief in a definable, somewhat anthropomorphic "God" would not be the kind of belief attractive to well-educated and perhaps intelligent people who are asking more complex questions more deeply than the kind of question answered by the statement "Yes, He exists!" The term "God" has so much baggage that any discussion that tried to include "God" as a meaningful entity is bound to get lost in confusion and contradiction. But if we start from agreement that "something exists", we can make better progress to at least a coherent position, even though it may not be provable. The conclusions one reaches can be reached logically and dispassionately and still be "religious".

It seems though that most people of measurably high intelligence choose to follow the path of "rational ignorance" in regard to following through on philosophy of religion; they're too busy doing what they think is more beneficial to others and to themselves. A time-consuming focus on faith-issues doesn't usually rate highly. And good luck to them, I say.

Edited May 9, 2012 by Xangsamhua

[rockyysdt]

What Siddhartha taught isn't even religion; its philosophy.

Are you sure about that?

Although much of the Buddhist practice is rewarding on many levels, you must have "Right View" in order to correctly follow it.

"Right View" includes acceptance of the existence of Gods (Devas), Devils & Demons, immortality through re birth, and, ultimately salvation from eternal suffering (Samsara) through "right view", & "right practice".

These elements require belief and can only be described as religious until tested.

One either has a religion or has the truth.

All religions remain religions until proven true.

Buddhism can be considered a religion, a philosophy, an Art of Living, or even a culture, according to Buddhadasa's Handbook for Mankind. Whether or not it is a religion to any one person would depend on the definition of "religion" to that person, but it makes sense to many people. You seem to have an unusual definition of religion being "that which is not true". Having a conversation about religion seems problematic with this definition.

Your working definition of Right View as including the acceptance of Divas, Devils, and Demons is likewise unusual. There are any number of Buddhist scholars who would never need to use those 'D' words or the conceptions they represent to explain Right View. I urge you to seek them out. Or maybe just Google it. Those 'D' fellows have nothing to do with the core of Buddhism, namely, in this instance, the Right View of the 8-Fold Path.

Words have meanings, and real dialogue can either debate what they mean, or, once that is decided, use them as tools for communication.

I attempted to argue against this quoted definition of "Right View" , but have been over ruled by FabianFred, Jawnie & Camerata who presented such views in the following thread:

http://www.thaivisa....ma/page__st__50

Quote:

• Multiple lifetimes and reincarnation are basic tenets of Buddhist philosophy, regardless of which school or vehicle one follows.
  
• 
  
• The Buddha was quite explicit in defining the content of what he called right view. One endowed with right view would understand the world as follows: "He has right view, undistorted vision, thus: ‘There is that which is given and what is offered and what is sacrificed; there is fruit and result of good and bad actions; there is this world and the other world; there is mother and father; there are beings who are reborn spontaneously; there are good and virtuous recluses and brahmins in the world who have themselves realized by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world’" (Majjhima Nikaya 41.14).
  
• 
  
• This formula implies that the real existential basis of our being is governed by the laws of karma ("result of good and bad actions") and rebirth ("there is this world and the other world"), including the possibility of rebirth into the deva realms ("spontaneously born beings"). This is difficult for some Western Buddhists to accept, and there is an active project to formulate a Buddhism that does not include these teachings.
  
• 
  
• And, even though you correctly cite the basics on the absence of a transmigrating self, it is still a wrong view because it is Nilhist. That is the belief there is no existence before or after this one.
  
• 
  
• Yes, "reborn spontaneously" is a term used in the Canon meaning reborn in a heavenly realm as opposed to the earthly realms (human and animal) that we are familiar with. This distinction doesn't make sense in terms of "moment-to-moment" rebirth.
  
• 
  
• Throughout the Canon we see the Buddha talking about inhabitants of other realms, even teaching the Dhamma to gods and devas, so again it doesn't make much sense to say this is all in the mind. But anything can be subject to different interpretations. If you are uncomfortable with that there will be no end to your doubts.
  
• 
  
• Is it so hard to accept that the Buddha experienced other realms and beings as a result of the abilities he gained through meditation?
  
• 
  
• Immediate rebirth occurs if a being is reborn into any realm except the human and animal realms where one is born as an egg and grows up. In the heaven realms one is born instantly...males as a 20 year old and females as a 15 or 16 year old (physically mature) and no aging occurs until ones lifetime is ending.
  
• Rebirth into the Hungry ghost, hell, and demon realms also is instant.
  
• 
  
• In the six heaven realms, which are realms of sensual happiness (including the human realm), there is no suffering. There are therfore no children in these realms, since pregnancy and childbirth is suffering. Beings born male appear as mature physically like a human 20 year old and those born female are like a 15 or 16 year old in the human realm. Pleasures of all five senses are experienced, taste...food, smell, sight...beauty, sounds, sensations....sex is had but probably different to in the human realm since no childbirth results. In some of the higher realms than the heavens there are no sexes, and in the highest ones no physical forms.
  

Without these things then practicing the eightfold path is a philosophy and way of life.

Including them propels Buddhism into a religion, in many respects, more elaborate than Christianity or Muslim.

The word "Religion" has a number of definitions, but due to its metaphysical characteristics, a pivotal definition for me, has always been, whether it has any basis in fact.

You either have a religion, or you have the truth.

Edited May 9, 2012 by rockyysdt

[JurgenG]

^ I read your posts but sorry for me there is no good and no bad, therefore no demons.

Still the 4 Noble Truths and the Eightfold path make sense to me.

Anyway it's interesting as a number of people share your views to see the implications of our differences.

[rockyysdt]

Your working definition of Right View as including the acceptance of Divas, Devils, and Demons is likewise unusual. There are any number of Buddhist scholars who would never need to use those 'D' words or the conceptions they represent to explain Right View. I urge you to seek them out. Or maybe just Google it. Those 'D' fellows have nothing to do with the core of Buddhism, namely, in this instance, the Right View of the 8-Fold Path.

Words have meanings, and real dialogue can either debate what they mean, or, once that is decided, use them as tools for communication.

If I support scholars like John Peacock who argued that Buddhism is a philosophy in which the Buddha taught metaphorically, and, by practicing the eightfold path, one can become free of greed, delusion, & aversion, then I'm told I don't have "right view".

But if I support "right view" as literally translated from the Buddhas works, and supported by key forum members, then my stance is unusual.

Huli, where do I go from here as I'm now considerably confused?

Edited May 10, 2012 by rockyysdt

[huli]

Your working definition of Right View as including the acceptance of Divas, Devils, and Demons is likewise unusual. There are any number of Buddhist scholars who would never need to use those 'D' words or the conceptions they represent to explain Right View. I urge you to seek them out. Or maybe just Google it. Those 'D' fellows have nothing to do with the core of Buddhism, namely, in this instance, the Right View of the 8-Fold Path.

Words have meanings, and real dialogue can either debate what they mean, or, once that is decided, use them as tools for communication.

If I support scholars like John Peacock who argued that Buddhism is a philosophy in which the Buddha taught metaphorically, and, by practicing the eightfold path, one can become free of greed, delusion, & aversion, then I'm told I don't have "right view".

But if I support "right view" as literally translated from the Buddhas works, and supported by key forum members, then my stance is unusual.

Huli, where do I go from here as I'm now considerably confused?

Hi Rocky,

I guess we both enjoy this Buddhist forum, and check it often!

I don't consider that I have the final word on anything, and am not qualified to say what is true or what isn't. I just have my opinions, and thanks for asking me about them.

In my opinion, John Peacock has interesting ideas but I would stop short of "supporting" him. Although he considers Buddhism a philosophy, that doesn't prove that it is only a philosophy. There could be other words that describe Buddhism too.

No one would question that the 8 Fold Path leads to overcoming greed, aversion, and delusion. Believing in that does not mean you don't have "right view". I really doubt that any of the leading contributors to this forum would say that.

Regarding "right view", I did review all of your postings, and I think you had quite a good description of "right view" at the outset, copied I think from the Wikipedia entry of the same name. Right view does not mean believing in the whole host of Buddhist beliefs like karma, rebirth, dependent origination, Devas, etc etc. Buddhists do subscribe to these beliefs either because they believe what Buddha said, or because they have an insight or inkling that they are true. However, specifically, "right view" does not include all of that. It is mainly just the aspect of subscribing to the Noble Truths. As I understand it.

It does not matter what someone calls Buddhism. A rose by any other name is still a rose.

A number of Buddhist ideas and beliefs are hard to fathom and hotly debated. But the "right view" of the 8 fold Path does not include accepting all of those beliefs, by my working definition anyway.

Thank you for the invitation to join you in dialogue. Just my 2 cents.