6 ms·

Analytic Thinking Promotes Religious Disbelief

22 points by amirmc 15y ago

rollypolly 15y ago
This would make an interesting HN poll. "Are you religious? Y/N?"
- Mz 15y ago
  Makes me wish I knew how to submit a poll.
- famousactress 15y ago
  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 :)
- d503 15y ago
  There was actually a poll about two years ago. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1486594 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1486594 Edit: 1519 out of 2251 (or 67.5%) responded Nonreligious/Atheist/Agnostic/etc.
  - amirmc 15y ago
    Interesting but it seems odd to lump atheists and agnostics in the same bin.
gizzlon 15y ago
Can't read the full text.. Guess I'll have to take their word for it =/
amirmc 15y ago
Found a Nature commentary (since the Science article has a paywall) "Is rationality the enemy of religion?" http://www.nature.com/news/is-rationality-the-enemy-of-religion-1.10539 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 http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~ara/research.htm
nvk 15y ago
Please don't post articles behind paywalls.
weissguy 15y ago
In other news, the sun is still pretty hot!
nextstep 15y ago
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.
- ars 15y ago
  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.
  - zerostar07 15y ago
    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.
    - MartinCron 15y ago
      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.
    - ars 15y ago
pradocchia 15y ago
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?
- ajross 15y ago
  I'm pretty sure they mean "intuition" to mean the thought process, not the skill of forming hypotheses from incomplete evidence.
alantrrs 15y ago
Here is the full article http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=losing-your-religion-analytic-thinking-can-undermine-belief http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=losing-your...
sarbogast 15y ago
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?
Kip9000 15y ago
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_science http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_s...)
rsanchez1 15y ago
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?

22 points by amirmc 15y ago

rollypolly 15y ago

This would make an interesting HN poll. "Are you religious? Y/N?"

Mz 15y ago
Makes me wish I knew how to submit a poll.
famousactress 15y ago
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 :)
d503 15y ago
There was actually a poll about two years ago. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1486594 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1486594 Edit: 1519 out of 2251 (or 67.5%) responded Nonreligious/Atheist/Agnostic/etc.
- amirmc 15y ago
  Interesting but it seems odd to lump atheists and agnostics in the same bin.

gizzlon 15y ago

Can't read the full text.. Guess I'll have to take their word for it =/

amirmc 15y ago

Found a Nature commentary (since the Science article has a paywall) "Is rationality the enemy of religion?" http://www.nature.com/news/is-rationality-the-enemy-of-religion-1.10539 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 http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~ara/research.htm

nvk 15y ago

Please don't post articles behind paywalls.

weissguy 15y ago

In other news, the sun is still pretty hot!

nextstep 15y ago

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.

ars 15y ago
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.
- zerostar07 15y ago
  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.
  - MartinCron 15y ago
    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.
  - ars 15y ago

pradocchia 15y ago

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?

ajross 15y ago
I'm pretty sure they mean "intuition" to mean the thought process, not the skill of forming hypotheses from incomplete evidence.

alantrrs 15y ago

Here is the full article http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=losing-your-religion-analytic-thinking-can-undermine-belief http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=losing-your...

sarbogast 15y ago

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?

Kip9000 15y ago

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_science http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_s...)

rsanchez1 15y ago

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?