Analytic Thinking Promotes Religious Disbelief(sciencemag.org)
sciencemag.org
Analytic Thinking Promotes Religious Disbelief
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6080/493.abstract
36 comments
Doesn't this seem obvious? I don't mean to be flippant, but central to religion is acceptance of ideas which are: 1) illogical; and, 2) infallible, and thus impervious to any real analysis. Any belief system that requires faith for explanation is by definition at odds with analysis.
[deleted]
Not really. Not all religious are illogical.
If you assume that something created "existence" then a lot of the rest follows logically. (i.e. such a creator would want people to know about it, would want to be acknowledged, etc.)
Math has axioms that can not be proven. Religion does too. If everything in your religion follows logically from the axioms it's not any more illogical than any school of thought.
Gödel proved that a logically consistent school of thought based entirely only on the proven is impossible.
Note: Not all religions are actually structured this way. Some really do require illogical belief. I'm just saying it's not an essential feature of religion.
If you assume that something created "existence" then a lot of the rest follows logically. (i.e. such a creator would want people to know about it, would want to be acknowledged, etc.)
Math has axioms that can not be proven. Religion does too. If everything in your religion follows logically from the axioms it's not any more illogical than any school of thought.
Gödel proved that a logically consistent school of thought based entirely only on the proven is impossible.
Note: Not all religions are actually structured this way. Some really do require illogical belief. I'm just saying it's not an essential feature of religion.
Math has axioms that can not be proven. Religion does too.
No, no, no. You are confused about what an axiom is; an axiom is truth that cannot be proven, but which is taken to be self-evident. Yes, you are correct that axioms in math cannot be proven; that is, by definition, what makes them axiomatic. An example is the identity axiom: x = x. This is obvious as to why we think this is true. This axiom is useful in proving more complex theorems. That's why mathematicians define such seemingly-obvious statements with axioms.
What would a religious "axiom" be? I take it that you believe the existence of a creator to be an "axiom" for a given religious set. This is a false analogy. How is the existence of a creator self-evident?
The burden of proof need not be on the doubters. If I make absurd claims (which conveniently are unverifiable), then they damn well better be self-evident.
No, no, no. You are confused about what an axiom is; an axiom is truth that cannot be proven, but which is taken to be self-evident. Yes, you are correct that axioms in math cannot be proven; that is, by definition, what makes them axiomatic. An example is the identity axiom: x = x. This is obvious as to why we think this is true. This axiom is useful in proving more complex theorems. That's why mathematicians define such seemingly-obvious statements with axioms.
What would a religious "axiom" be? I take it that you believe the existence of a creator to be an "axiom" for a given religious set. This is a false analogy. How is the existence of a creator self-evident?
The burden of proof need not be on the doubters. If I make absurd claims (which conveniently are unverifiable), then they damn well better be self-evident.
Something created existence (not just the matter of the universe - the concept of there being "something"). You can argue about the nature of this thing (is it sentient, does it desire interaction), but that something created existence is indeed self evident.
Something created existence...
No. That is absolutely not self-evident. In fact, if something created existence, that would require an entity that operates outside of our current understanding of physics. What evidence do we have for this theory? Why assume it was something that created existence? Maybe there are more laws of physics to be discovered. Perhaps these laws will very neatly explain many characteristic of our universe. There are infinite other possible explanations. The religious idea that a creator was cause of our existence is unsupported by anything other than religious texts, and this idea is clearly not the sole possible explanation for the origins of the universe.
So in short, no, the existence of a creator is not self-evident. If you use religion to answers such questions which are unanswered with our current knowledge of the universe, then you are being irrational, not analytical. Before we understood that our planet rotates around the sun, there were numerous supernatural explanations. At the time, it was thought to be unknowable. But a few hundred years later, we realize that: 1) the answer to this question is knowable, and 2) the answer now seems trivial, almost obvious.
Modern theists, like modern rationalists, are likely to accept that ancient religious doctrine is silly and false. Does a god pull the sun across the sky in his chariot each day? No! That's ridiculous. Most modern theists reject these outdated theological ideas. They have reduced their belief structure to one god; atheists just go one further. It's the obvious next step in our civilizations movement out of antiquity and towards enlightenment.
The modern religious person either ignores science and all of the evidence, or sits at the edge of our current universal knowledge and posits that the limitations of our current scientific knowledge must be explained by the supernatural. Fortunately, history will prove the religious wrong. Our current epistemological and ontological questions are no exception.
No. That is absolutely not self-evident. In fact, if something created existence, that would require an entity that operates outside of our current understanding of physics. What evidence do we have for this theory? Why assume it was something that created existence? Maybe there are more laws of physics to be discovered. Perhaps these laws will very neatly explain many characteristic of our universe. There are infinite other possible explanations. The religious idea that a creator was cause of our existence is unsupported by anything other than religious texts, and this idea is clearly not the sole possible explanation for the origins of the universe.
So in short, no, the existence of a creator is not self-evident. If you use religion to answers such questions which are unanswered with our current knowledge of the universe, then you are being irrational, not analytical. Before we understood that our planet rotates around the sun, there were numerous supernatural explanations. At the time, it was thought to be unknowable. But a few hundred years later, we realize that: 1) the answer to this question is knowable, and 2) the answer now seems trivial, almost obvious.
Modern theists, like modern rationalists, are likely to accept that ancient religious doctrine is silly and false. Does a god pull the sun across the sky in his chariot each day? No! That's ridiculous. Most modern theists reject these outdated theological ideas. They have reduced their belief structure to one god; atheists just go one further. It's the obvious next step in our civilizations movement out of antiquity and towards enlightenment.
The modern religious person either ignores science and all of the evidence, or sits at the edge of our current universal knowledge and posits that the limitations of our current scientific knowledge must be explained by the supernatural. Fortunately, history will prove the religious wrong. Our current epistemological and ontological questions are no exception.
> In fact, if something created existence, that would require an entity that operates outside of our current understanding of physics.
Obviously. I suspect you don't know that much about physics, but that's kind of implied: You can't create the laws of physics from within the laws of physics.
> What evidence do we have for this theory?
Conservation of energy, entropy. It's very well accepted that whatever created our current laws came from outside the laws.
There are some scientific explanations for the existence of matter, but none for the existence of the laws. The closest anyone comes is the idea that all possible laws exist (multiverse) - but of course that doesn't answer the question of where the framework the existence of any laws at all comes.
> Maybe there are more laws of physics to be discovered.
Maybe, but that doesn't answer the question of where those laws came from. All you did is move up a step, but you answered nothing.
> there were numerous supernatural explanations
Not really. The explanations were actually scientific - look up Aristotelian physics. They may have been wrong, but they were entirely secular.
> Does a god pull the sun across the sky in his chariot each day? No!
No one actually believed that. It was part of legends and stories told for entertainment.
> posits that the limitations of our current scientific knowledge must be explained by the supernatural
There is only one limitation that needs the supernatural: The existence of nature. Lets say our world is a simulation on a computer. Does that count as a natural or supernatural explanation to you?
Obviously. I suspect you don't know that much about physics, but that's kind of implied: You can't create the laws of physics from within the laws of physics.
> What evidence do we have for this theory?
Conservation of energy, entropy. It's very well accepted that whatever created our current laws came from outside the laws.
There are some scientific explanations for the existence of matter, but none for the existence of the laws. The closest anyone comes is the idea that all possible laws exist (multiverse) - but of course that doesn't answer the question of where the framework the existence of any laws at all comes.
> Maybe there are more laws of physics to be discovered.
Maybe, but that doesn't answer the question of where those laws came from. All you did is move up a step, but you answered nothing.
> there were numerous supernatural explanations
Not really. The explanations were actually scientific - look up Aristotelian physics. They may have been wrong, but they were entirely secular.
> Does a god pull the sun across the sky in his chariot each day? No!
No one actually believed that. It was part of legends and stories told for entertainment.
> posits that the limitations of our current scientific knowledge must be explained by the supernatural
There is only one limitation that needs the supernatural: The existence of nature. Lets say our world is a simulation on a computer. Does that count as a natural or supernatural explanation to you?
Name one major religion that is logical. It's not really about your personal existential questions, religions are organized social phenomena (probably biological adaptations one could say).
Maths and logic is a consistent system and it can even prove its inconsistencies. Despite popular opinion, Godel's theorem does not provide mathematical foundation to illogical truths, nor does it state that any arbitrary argument cannot be decided. It's specific statements cannot be decided. In short, Maths don't make metaphysical claims, and please don't use Godel / Quantum indeterminacy / chaos theory / complexity theory as arguments in religious discussions.
Maths and logic is a consistent system and it can even prove its inconsistencies. Despite popular opinion, Godel's theorem does not provide mathematical foundation to illogical truths, nor does it state that any arbitrary argument cannot be decided. It's specific statements cannot be decided. In short, Maths don't make metaphysical claims, and please don't use Godel / Quantum indeterminacy / chaos theory / complexity theory as arguments in religious discussions.
All religions have as a core belief the particulars of the creation of existence. Most require that the creation happened as a act of will by a sentience. Not all though, some hold that it was created as reflex of sort. But all claim to know how it happened (and agnosticism holds that we don't know, and atheism holds that it created itself with an additional belief that we will eventually figure out how it happened).
That belief will never go away, so if that's your criteria there is no point in continuing further.
But religion is more than just that, there are all sorts of other things that religions require, and that's where my argument lies. Rites, rituals, prohibited practices, required practices, what is considered good, what is bad, what is neutral. Some religions don't require anything at all - just the core belief in a creator and that's it.
The question is what is the source of these things - are they dictated by fiat, and believers just believe it without thinking about it? Or does every single ritual and belief require rigorous explanation and analysis before being accepted as necessary.
And you got my argument about Gödel backward. I did not argue religion from Gödel, rather that everything also requires some belief without proof. (The interesting arguments about what if that belief was wrong are what differentiates science from religion.) But the need for the belief doesn't go away.
That belief will never go away, so if that's your criteria there is no point in continuing further.
But religion is more than just that, there are all sorts of other things that religions require, and that's where my argument lies. Rites, rituals, prohibited practices, required practices, what is considered good, what is bad, what is neutral. Some religions don't require anything at all - just the core belief in a creator and that's it.
The question is what is the source of these things - are they dictated by fiat, and believers just believe it without thinking about it? Or does every single ritual and belief require rigorous explanation and analysis before being accepted as necessary.
And you got my argument about Gödel backward. I did not argue religion from Gödel, rather that everything also requires some belief without proof. (The interesting arguments about what if that belief was wrong are what differentiates science from religion.) But the need for the belief doesn't go away.
- True, all religions anthropomorphize, and i find that very arrogant on humans' part. Why would a god have will, intention, our time arrow etc? My favorite is that ancient egyptian story where some god created the universe by ejaculating. There's even a metaphysical theory that tries to find its way in Physics called "anthropic principle". How do you back up your claim that beliefs like that will never go away?
- True, Rites and practices may indeed help general wellbeing. So does yoga. (relevant talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/alain_de_botton_atheism_2_0.html).
- True, Almost all religions are moralizing and define what is right and wrong. So do atheists (by themselves or through rational thinking)
- Again, Godel's incompleteness does not mean we hold that "math is true" without proof. We have proofs for when it is and when it is not. Maths is a tool, not a religion.
In general, it's impossible to enter a religious argument without specifying your personal position. I personally never felt the need to see an external force guiding things around or setting things in motion and watching from afar. It just doesn't sound intuitive or interest me, and i feel it would violate my freedom, so sorry if i come off as aggressively anti-religious.
- True, Rites and practices may indeed help general wellbeing. So does yoga. (relevant talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/alain_de_botton_atheism_2_0.html).
- True, Almost all religions are moralizing and define what is right and wrong. So do atheists (by themselves or through rational thinking)
- Again, Godel's incompleteness does not mean we hold that "math is true" without proof. We have proofs for when it is and when it is not. Maths is a tool, not a religion.
In general, it's impossible to enter a religious argument without specifying your personal position. I personally never felt the need to see an external force guiding things around or setting things in motion and watching from afar. It just doesn't sound intuitive or interest me, and i feel it would violate my freedom, so sorry if i come off as aggressively anti-religious.
All religions have as a core belief the particulars of the creation of existence.
Buddhism is a counter-example. There are many strands of Buddhism, but in general they do not take a position on the creation of the universe, the existence of deities, or many other things that most Westerners would think are central to a religion.
If all that you're really familiar with are variants on one religion (Judaism, Christianity and Islam share holy books), it is easy to believe that all religions look the same with different texts. But in fact there is a much wider variety of religions in the world than that.
Buddhism is a counter-example. There are many strands of Buddhism, but in general they do not take a position on the creation of the universe, the existence of deities, or many other things that most Westerners would think are central to a religion.
If all that you're really familiar with are variants on one religion (Judaism, Christianity and Islam share holy books), it is easy to believe that all religions look the same with different texts. But in fact there is a much wider variety of religions in the world than that.
Um.... its not just Judiasm. It's also every animist branch that makes up the traditional religions of Africa. It's also the religions of the Mayans, Aztecs, Norse, and Greco-Romans.
It's also the Shintoist religion of Japan and the Hinduists of the Indian Subcontinent.
If Buddhism lacks something that all other religions independently developed then is Buddhism really a religion?
It's also the Shintoist religion of Japan and the Hinduists of the Indian Subcontinent.
If Buddhism lacks something that all other religions independently developed then is Buddhism really a religion?
That is a very sweeping claim. I'm certainly not qualified to talk about every one of those religions. I doubt that you are either.
Also the existence of a creation myth does not mean that it is particularly important to that religion. For instance the Catholic faith has a detailed creation myth in the Bible. However the official statements from leaders of that faith (see, for instance, Pope John Paul's October 22, 1996 address where he says that "evolution is more than a hypothesis") accepts the truth of the scientific consensus on how the world came to be, even though it is in direct and obvious conflict with their creation myth.
Yes, I know all of the logical arguments you can make for the creation myths being central to the faith. They have been made before, including by a variety of Catholics. However the current belief of many millions of Catholics, and the official statements of the church, demonstrate that their creation myth is NOT, in fact, central to the religion.
Also the existence of a creation myth does not mean that it is particularly important to that religion. For instance the Catholic faith has a detailed creation myth in the Bible. However the official statements from leaders of that faith (see, for instance, Pope John Paul's October 22, 1996 address where he says that "evolution is more than a hypothesis") accepts the truth of the scientific consensus on how the world came to be, even though it is in direct and obvious conflict with their creation myth.
Yes, I know all of the logical arguments you can make for the creation myths being central to the faith. They have been made before, including by a variety of Catholics. However the current belief of many millions of Catholics, and the official statements of the church, demonstrate that their creation myth is NOT, in fact, central to the religion.
Don't narrow this down to a discussion about creation myths when you said it was about creation myths, the existence of dieties, and many other things that westerns consider part of a religion.
If you lack the mystical faith-based aspects of religion then are you a religion? If so, then why isn't Confusianism a religion? Why isn't Neitzchism a religion?
Secondly, I don't know what kind of qualifications one needs to talk about religion, but if ordinary people can no longer do it then what you are encouraging is a priesthood, and not a science.
If you lack the mystical faith-based aspects of religion then are you a religion? If so, then why isn't Confusianism a religion? Why isn't Neitzchism a religion?
Secondly, I don't know what kind of qualifications one needs to talk about religion, but if ordinary people can no longer do it then what you are encouraging is a priesthood, and not a science.
Excuse me, I said?
Where? Provide me a link.
Here is a hint. The point about creation myths was brought up at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3901527 by someone named ars. I registered an objection. You then told me that virtually every religion in the world is an example and gave an extensive list. I demonstrated that the Catholic faith stands as an example of a religion with a creation myth that is not really core to the religion.
As for qualifications, anyone can talk about religion, it is up to you whether you discuss it intelligently. I would suggest that you start with developing the skill of being able to correctly note who said what, then work up to the skill of being able to give references backing up claims that you choose to make. (It helps when you don't make sweeping claims.)
Where? Provide me a link.
Here is a hint. The point about creation myths was brought up at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3901527 by someone named ars. I registered an objection. You then told me that virtually every religion in the world is an example and gave an extensive list. I demonstrated that the Catholic faith stands as an example of a religion with a creation myth that is not really core to the religion.
As for qualifications, anyone can talk about religion, it is up to you whether you discuss it intelligently. I would suggest that you start with developing the skill of being able to correctly note who said what, then work up to the skill of being able to give references backing up claims that you choose to make. (It helps when you don't make sweeping claims.)
BTW you misunderstood what I said about creation. I wasn't talking about how creation happened (for example Genesis). I was talking about that there was an active creation by something (God).
I'm not talking about creation of the Earth and animals - I'm talking about creation of existence.
I'm not talking about creation of the Earth and animals - I'm talking about creation of existence.
> All religions have as a core belief the particulars of the creation of existence. Most require that the creation happened as a act of will by a sentience. Not all though, some hold that it was created as reflex of sort. But all claim to know how it happened...
Well, not all - Buddhism, for example doesn't posit a specific creation story, with or without a creator sentience.
Well, not all - Buddhism, for example doesn't posit a specific creation story, with or without a creator sentience.
> Well, not all - Buddhism, for example doesn't posit a specific creation story, with or without a creator sentience.
Yes, that is true. After reading a lot about it I would have to consider Buddhism the epitome of a non-logical religions (which, if you recall was the reason I brought up creation). All its teachings appear to have nothing backing them except someone thought of it.
It claims to require evidence for things, yet there is no evidence at all for any of its core teachings. Basically it says that due to meditation someone figured out these things - but that someone provides no evidence of this except his say so.
It has lots of interesting elements that are praised as being compatible with science, but those are basically philosophy/psychology and have no religious elements to them. Lots of interesting thought about the nature of people - which I guess made it attractive to people. But the religious parts (other worlds/planes of existence, enlightenment, karma, etc) have nothing backing them except one man said so.
If you are going to start a religion you're going to have to do some pretty heavy duty miracles (and in front of thousands, not just your close friends) in order to convince me that you didn't just make it up. (By me I mean a person who was alive at the start of the religion.)
Obviously a huge different between science and religion is that science can be proved now, and religion can only be proved when it started.
Once you do those miracles you have proven yourself and I can believe the rest of what you say without evidence (another large different from science).
To be a logical religion it must have made sense to the people who were alive when it started. Those people must have been able to verify every claim. Obviously we can not verify that what the religion says is what actually happened, but if you assume it to be true it must at least it must be self consistent and verifiable to those people who were there. And Buddhism is not, but religion can be, and that is my argument.
Yes, that is true. After reading a lot about it I would have to consider Buddhism the epitome of a non-logical religions (which, if you recall was the reason I brought up creation). All its teachings appear to have nothing backing them except someone thought of it.
It claims to require evidence for things, yet there is no evidence at all for any of its core teachings. Basically it says that due to meditation someone figured out these things - but that someone provides no evidence of this except his say so.
It has lots of interesting elements that are praised as being compatible with science, but those are basically philosophy/psychology and have no religious elements to them. Lots of interesting thought about the nature of people - which I guess made it attractive to people. But the religious parts (other worlds/planes of existence, enlightenment, karma, etc) have nothing backing them except one man said so.
If you are going to start a religion you're going to have to do some pretty heavy duty miracles (and in front of thousands, not just your close friends) in order to convince me that you didn't just make it up. (By me I mean a person who was alive at the start of the religion.)
Obviously a huge different between science and religion is that science can be proved now, and religion can only be proved when it started.
Once you do those miracles you have proven yourself and I can believe the rest of what you say without evidence (another large different from science).
To be a logical religion it must have made sense to the people who were alive when it started. Those people must have been able to verify every claim. Obviously we can not verify that what the religion says is what actually happened, but if you assume it to be true it must at least it must be self consistent and verifiable to those people who were there. And Buddhism is not, but religion can be, and that is my argument.
please don't use Godel / Quantum indeterminacy / chaos theory / complexity theory as arguments in religious discussions
Amen to that! Or, whatever, you know what I mean.
Amen to that! Or, whatever, you know what I mean.
> If you assume that something created "existence" then a lot of the rest follows logically. (i.e. such a creator would want people to know about it, would want to be acknowledged, etc.)
This is the mistake of prescribing human-like wants and needs to something that's by-definition inhuman. Godlike power and intelligence would be akin to the difference between us and other animals. Do you think other animals go around theorizing what motivates humans? No, our wants and needs are unfathomable to an animal, just as a gods wants and needs would be unfathomable to us.
This is the mistake of prescribing human-like wants and needs to something that's by-definition inhuman. Godlike power and intelligence would be akin to the difference between us and other animals. Do you think other animals go around theorizing what motivates humans? No, our wants and needs are unfathomable to an animal, just as a gods wants and needs would be unfathomable to us.
Yah, that's quite true - and I would say the difference is even greater.
But implied in the knowledge of the existence of the creator is that the creator was the one that gave us this knowledge. And since the creator did that, some other things can be assumed.
If the creator never communicated with humans then we would not know about his existence, and then any sort of worship would make no sense.
So if a religion claims to know anything at all about a creator it must also be that the creator has at least the desire to be known to his creations. i.e. this is just another way of stating the core axiom that all religions must have.
But implied in the knowledge of the existence of the creator is that the creator was the one that gave us this knowledge. And since the creator did that, some other things can be assumed.
If the creator never communicated with humans then we would not know about his existence, and then any sort of worship would make no sense.
So if a religion claims to know anything at all about a creator it must also be that the creator has at least the desire to be known to his creations. i.e. this is just another way of stating the core axiom that all religions must have.
That is probably one of the stupidest studies I've read about in years. Along with the scientific confirmation that yes, the fact that penguins and hens can't fly might have something to do with their wing size to weight ratio, and the amazing discovery that all winners of the lottery have plaid the lottery at least once in their life. I mean, who would have guessed?
Many of the founding fathers of modern science were religious. E.g. Isaac Newton, Max Plank etc..
This theory flies in the face of that empirical evidence. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_s...)
Here is the full article
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=losing-your...
I'll summarize the interesting part:
Analytic thought appears to suppress intuition, with religious belief as a casualty.
Ignoring religious belief for the moment--seems like a side effect, really--intuition is a really valuable thing. Now I'm an analytic person with an analytic job in an analytic world. Has my intuition already gone to pot? Just how atrophied is it? And how would I get it back? Go to church more?
Analytic thought appears to suppress intuition, with religious belief as a casualty.
Ignoring religious belief for the moment--seems like a side effect, really--intuition is a really valuable thing. Now I'm an analytic person with an analytic job in an analytic world. Has my intuition already gone to pot? Just how atrophied is it? And how would I get it back? Go to church more?
I'm pretty sure they mean "intuition" to mean the thought process, not the skill of forming hypotheses from incomplete evidence.
Please don't post articles behind paywalls.
Can't read the full text.. Guess I'll have to take their word for it =/
This would make an interesting HN poll. "Are you religious? Y/N?"
There was actually a poll about two years ago. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1486594
Edit: 1519 out of 2251 (or 67.5%) responded Nonreligious/Atheist/Agnostic/etc.
Edit: 1519 out of 2251 (or 67.5%) responded Nonreligious/Atheist/Agnostic/etc.
Interesting but it seems odd to lump atheists and agnostics in the same bin.
Historically it hasn't been a common/popular topic of discussion on HN, and I can't say I'd be a fan of that changing :)
Makes me wish I knew how to submit a poll.
In other news, the sun is still pretty hot!
It's funny how an article like this, behind a paywall no less, gets promoted, while an article on how Obama is intimidating Romney donors gets dismissed with an "why is this on HN?"
Well, why is THIS on HN?
Well, why is THIS on HN?
"Is rationality the enemy of religion?" http://www.nature.com/news/is-rationality-the-enemy-of-relig...
Edit: Removed ranting about academic paywalls. Hopefully, the original authors might add a pdf to their website e.g http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~ara/research.htm