Analytical Vs Intuition And Religion.

[Pete]

Research in the magazine "Scientific American" (April 25, 2012) suggests that people who use analytical thinking are less likely to be religious or believe in the supernatural whilst those who use intuition are more likey to be the opposite.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/losing-your-religion-analytic-thinking-can-undermine-belief/

I realise that both intuition and analysis are both useful traits in problem solving and useful skills to have in life. I also note the differences in the test results are marked but not overwhelming, but I find them interesting.

[mererdog]

I have an alternate explanation for the results. Because people are scoring their own level of belief, perhaps the analytical thinking simply leads to more conservative scoring. Giving more weight to small doubts when ranking personal faith, rather than having more doubts or less faith, make sense?

[Pete]

Maybe, but I think that was the point of random groups and control groups and repeating the experiment more than once.

I have a lot of respect for analysis and intuition. I am not trying to make a point here except I found it interesting.

[mererdog]

Maybe, but I think that was the point of random groups and control groups and repeating the experiment more than once

I just don't see how they could differentiate between a difference in how much two people believe and a difference in how two people see their own beliefs. It's a really tricky subject to create objective metrics for. Definitely interesting stuff. I just enjoy trying to come up with alternate explanations for data sets when I see this kind of study. It makes me try to look at it from as many angles as possible, which is kind of fun.... Edited February 23, 2015 by mererdog

[Brother Kaman]

My "gut" feelings have never led me astray, though, analysis would probably never find the reason that it is so. Maybe that is why I am God.

[panpareil]

The paper this article is based on is titled "Analytic Thinking Promotes Religious Disbelief", by Will M. Gervais and Ara Norenzayan, published in Science, 336(27), Apr, 2012, pages 493-6.

This study does not test belief in general, but specifically belief in the predominant Western God. The methods tested are ways to diminish this belief, my assumption is this is an a first step toward a program of diminishing this particular belief in public schools.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

I read the article. It looks like an example of "bias confirmation." What does any of this count for unless the group begins with the same beliefs? If it were a study of diabetes patients; all the participants would start with the same range of blood sugar. Did they do anything similar with "belief?" No. Neither did they define "belief." Or "God." Or "angels." At minimum, I think it's possible to believe in God and not believe in angels. Or the reverse.

The study may have been much better than the summary indicates. From here, it looks flawed.

[Atwater Vitki]

...and then, in the end, how can any test or scientific scoring method actually measure the amount of anybody's belief or faith in a religious deity or institution?

How does anyone line up ten, fifty, a hundred absolutely true believers who all claim to be the poster child for that Belief and measure their actual belief? Well, evidently these two scientist did and had a great time using comparative analysis of data collected. So be it.

I have to agree with "bias confirmation" on the whole matter, however....

(of course, you KNEW there was going to be a 'however' when Al's pontificating )

I think I get where you're coming from, Pete, on posting this article when you stated:

I realise that both intuition and analysis are both useful traits in problem solving and useful skills to have in life. I also note the differences in the test results are marked but not overwhelming, but I find them interesting.

It is interesting that science would even attempt to study or measure such a thing as belief and how analytical thinking tends to sway people away from staunch religious Belief. I mean whenever we look at anything from a purely analytical view point we have to consider all available information including what does and does not make sense, logically, and what agrees with known historical data etc etc etc..

Therein lies the rub with any religion. Few if any of the characters involved can be proven to have existed, and in many cases if they did exist it was under a different name or persona. We know that ancient man "borrowed" stories from one another and over time made them their own and another complete set of etc etc etc's that we're all aware of.

The thing I did not see in this study was the formula for belief based on individual belief alone...just because it's what a person honestly feels is right for them regardless of socio-politico influences. In today's world there are 7 billion and growing opinions of what makes up the "true religious belief"...what about feral children? That handful of people that have no idea about any "difference" between religions or that religion even exists...what would they believe in? Would that not be the only true test by having no outside or peer influence on what we believe?

Thanks for the morning stimulation here Pete, got me thinking about a few things!

Blessings of Peace,

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

...and then, in the end, how can any test or scientific scoring method actually measure the amount of anybody's belief or faith in a religious deity or institution?

How does anyone line up ten, fifty, a hundred absolutely true believers who all claim to be the poster child for that Belief and measure their actual belief? Well, evidently these two scientist did and had a great time using comparative analysis of data collected. So be it.

I have to agree with "bias confirmation" on the whole matter, however....

(of course, you KNEW there was going to be a 'however' when Al's pontificating )

I think I get where you're coming from, Pete, on posting this article when you stated:

It is interesting that science would even attempt to study or measure such a thing as belief and how analytical thinking tends to sway people away from staunch religious Belief. I mean whenever we look at anything from a purely analytical view point we have to consider all available information including what does and does not make sense, logically, and what agrees with known historical data etc etc etc..

Therein lies the rub with any religion. Few if any of the characters involved can be proven to have existed, and in many cases if they did exist it was under a different name or persona. We know that ancient man "borrowed" stories from one another and over time made them their own and another complete set of etc etc etc's that we're all aware of.

The thing I did not see in this study was the formula for belief based on individual belief alone...just because it's what a person honestly feels is right for them regardless of socio-politico influences. In today's world there are 7 billion and growing opinions of what makes up the "true religious belief"...what about feral children? That handful of people that have no idea about any "difference" between religions or that religion even exists...what would they believe in? Would that not be the only true test by having no outside or peer influence on what we believe?

Thanks for the morning stimulation here Pete, got me thinking about a few things!

Blessings of Peace,

Feral children? I expect you mean minds with no religious exposure at all. That could be difficult. On the other hand -- talking with a true artificial intelligence might be interesting.

[cuchulain]

I think what it boils down to is asking the question, does stronger analytical thinking naturally lead a person away from religious or spiritual beliefs? I agree, there is no way that I can imagine to measure a persons beliefs, or how strong they are, and to compare them accurately with someone else's, but the general question can still be debated. Does logic naturally defy spirituality?

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

I think what it boils down to is asking the question, does stronger analytical thinking naturally lead a person away from religious or spiritual beliefs? I agree, there is no way that I can imagine to measure a persons beliefs, or how strong they are, and to compare them accurately with someone else's, but the general question can still be debated. Does logic naturally defy spirituality?

I'm not comfortable with this vague use of "spirituality." What does this take in? All forms of prayer? All forms of meditation? Scriptural dogmatism? Love of Humanity? A sense of awe? Feeling connected to everything? Belief in Heaven and Hell as real places? Intimate conversations with angels? Leaving a bowl of milk out for the brownies?

I'm not trying to be funny or mean. If we can't ask better questions than a vague "spirituality" -- there is small point in asking. The answers will be equally meaningless.

[Brother Kaman]

I'm not comfortable with this vague use of "spirituality." What does this take in? All forms of prayer? All forms of meditation? Scriptural dogmatism? Love of Humanity? A sense of awe? Feeling connected to everything? Belief in Heaven and Hell as real places? Intimate conversations with angels? Leaving a bowl of milk out for the brownies?

I'm not trying to be funny or mean. If we can't ask better questions than a vague "spirituality" -- there is small point in asking. The answers will be equally meaningless.

It is good that someone can remind us that we spout meaningless blather.

[Pete]

I am more with the issue of the idea of analysis being everything. I remember Star trek Captain Picard talking to Data. Data said it would be impossible and Picard replied a thing is impossible until it is not. I think of a view of a would be visitor who could see humanity when they hunted animals, lived in caves, and grunted to one another. Analysis would likely be they would not amount to much but later they would land on the moon, split the atom and peer into the farthest parts of the universe and still use intuition and ambition to continue in its pursuits.

The problem I see is that analysis does not describe everything it is to be human. What about our dreams and hopes and views and the faiths of mankind that has carried us through many things where logic and analysis would have declared there was no hope.

It may well be analysis does diminish religion or spirituality but in my mind when it is the only arbiter it also diminishes what it is to be human. Analysis may well be wonderful with what it reveals but intuition is also wonderful with what it achieves and I for one would not like to be ruled just by analysis and (imo) such narrow perception only. Analysis maybe a good tool but I believe we need intuition too.

It is that which I found interesting about the article and those who seem to think analysis is all.

[cuchulain]

I use the term spirituality because I don't want to list every single possible belief, form of meditation, etc...but I don't want to leave anyone out. I thought that seemed fairly clear, but apparently I was mistaken. It is intended that the reader should see the term spirituality, and install their own personal form of belief etc in that location. Sorry if I was not specific enough for you Johnathan. I really thought the thinking people on this forum could read the question and decipher my meaning from what I wrote, without nitpicking, but apparently I was mistaken? I don't suppose the term "religion" is too vague as well? Which religion, which branch of that religion? Really?

Brother Kaman, do you intend that to be insulting? It comes off as you saying I spout meaningless blather, and while I can appreciate that it might be meant as humorous, and so choose not to take offense, I thought I would ask. I do take issue with it being meaningless to try to state a question, and ask for an answer. I was always told that there are no stupid questions.

Edited February 26, 2015 by cuchulain

[Pete]

I use the term spirituality because I don't want to list every single possible belief, form of meditation, etc...but I don't want to leave anyone out. I thought that seemed fairly clear, but apparently I was mistaken. It is intended that the reader should see the term spirituality, and install their own personal form of belief etc in that location. Sorry if I was not specific enough for you Johnathan. I really thought the thinking people on this forum could read the question and decipher my meaning from what I wrote, without nitpicking, but apparently I was mistaken? I don't suppose the term "religion" is too vague as well? Which religion, which branch of that religion? Really?

Brother Kaman, do you intend that to be insulting? It comes off as you saying I spout meaningless blather, and while I can appreciate that it might be meant as humorous, and so choose not to take offense, I thought I would ask. I do take issue with it being meaningless to try to state a question, and ask for an answer. I was always told that there are no stupid questions.

With respect my friend, I think I missed something. I understood their comments were directed at the artical which all seem to note it pretends to be scientific but is let down by its vague comments and ill defined use of words concepts like religion or spirituality and for that matter analysis and intuition. I thought all were saying the same thing as you were and giving the article a thumbs down. What you said was (imo) sound. Edited February 27, 2015 by Pete

[cuchulain]

might be, pete, and maybe I owe apologies. Been in a bummer kind of mood today, and I think I let that reflect on how I took what they said. Sorry, everyone.

[Pete]

Been there many times my friend. I hope things get better.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

I was talking about the article. I expect much better of Scientific American.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

I am more with the issue of the idea of analysis being everything. I remember Star trek Captain Picard talking to Data. Data said it would be impossible and Picard replied a thing is impossible until it is not. I think of a view of a would be visitor who could see humanity when they hunted animals, lived in caves, and grunted to one another. Analysis would likely be they would not amount to much but later they would land on the moon, split the atom and peer into the farthest parts of the universe and still use intuition and ambition to continue in its pursuits.

The problem I see is that analysis does not describe everything it is to be human. What about our dreams and hopes and views and the faiths of mankind that has carried us through many things where logic and analysis would have declared there was no hope.

It may well be analysis does diminish religion or spirituality but in my mind when it is the only arbiter it also diminishes what it is to be human. Analysis may well be wonderful with what it reveals but intuition is also wonderful with what it achieves and I for one would not like to be ruled just by analysis and (imo) such narrow perception only. Analysis maybe a good tool but I believe we need intuition too.

It is that which I found interesting about the article and those who seem to think analysis is all.

If we are to take this study at face value -- and go with the vaguest of generalities -- what do we have? On the face of things; does analytic thinking depress "spirituality?" No. It does not.

Christian fundamentalists expend great rigor in their analysis of the Bible. I might question the logic or reasoning, but not the analytic rigor. Likewise, Islamists put great analytic emphasis on understanding the Koran and Haadith. Serious students of Yoga take great efforts to understand the Aphorisms of Patanjali. From this, we can see that the premise is false.

This whole question of analytic thinking is a variant of biased world view. An older version of this question is -- "Are intelligent people less likely to be religious than stupid people?" Or -- "Are educated people less likely to be religious than the ignorant?" I don't like these questions either. I am saying that this question about analytic thinking is in that mold. At best it is about confirmation bias. Really, it's about attitude. IMO.

If we are going to have good discussions about what makes people religious, or spiritual or what ever -- we need much better questions and more honesty.

Edited February 28, 2015 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Pete]

No argument there Jonathan