Why are you accusing me of [obfuscation and sophistry]?
Your 'absentheist' and 'belief' topics.
In fairness to you EdenOne I actually share your interests here but I feel the need to establish bases with you . . .
How the human mind processes facts and faith differently
by EdenOne 59 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
nicolaou
-
EdenOne
Don't forget, Nic, that we're here because we all came from the same place, not all of us are on the same trajectory out of it, neither are all of us at the same distance from our point of origin. Our mileage may vary, and so do our cognitive methods to achieve certain answers we're looking for.
Eden
-
nicolaou
True enough, but on a topic concerned with the mental processing of faith and facts I thought it worth establishing that some facts can be 'processed' with minimal effort.
See how easily you dismissed miracles when pressed on it? Now it's not such a huge step to dismiss all supernatural accounts is it?
Of course our journey's are our own, I'm just trying to save folks some shoe leather . . .
-
GrreatTeacher
Eden, I looked at the study regarding supernatual reasoning increasing with age.
I wonder, though, if this might be a cohort effect wherein these beliefs are more common among those of an earlier generation?
In that case, it might represent a way of thinking that has since become "modernized," which would explain why younger people were less likely to ascribe supernatual explanations to natural phenomena.
This, in contrast to the idea that age represents longer and thus more mature reasoning.
-
Oubliette
"supernatual reasoning"
Now THERE'S an oxymoron!!!
Eden, thank for the reference. I gave it a look!
It's only a brief summary of a research study. Only scant details are mentioned as to the demographics and they are lumped together in a way that makes it impossible to really analyze the thesis of the article.
However, there was this very telling quote. Notice what it said about one large group in the study.
"They also conducted a study with 366 people in South Africa, where biomedical and traditional healing practices are both widely available. ... Yet supernatural explanations, such as witchcraft, also were frequently supported among the children and universally among adults." - Emphasis added
Um, yeah!
Although the specifics of the demographics of this group are not revealed, they are most certainly NOT typical of adults in industrialized countries anywhere, particularly in the West.
-
EdenOne
from the article: "Legare said the findings contradict the common assumption that supernatural beliefs dissipate with age and knowledge."
It appears to me that the authors of the study (from the University of Austin, Texas) didn't simply verify that the older generation is more prone to supernatural thinking. One could argue that older generations weren't exposed to science, had less education, etc. But seems to me that the study, rather than taking a static 'snapshot' , observed a dynamic trend in the observed population. I would argue that greater ailments and the proximity of death that come with old age prompt a stronger propension to supernatural thinking.
Eden
-
Oubliette
Eden, you can argue all you want.
The problem with your source is that it combines all sorts of disparate groups, making a very general statement about them, without allowing the reader any way to separate or distinguish them.
I would hope the actual study would make these distinctions explicit clear.
-
EdenOne
I would hope the actual study would make these distinctions explicit clear.
You can find it here, in the May/June 2012 edition of Child Development, volume 83, Number 3, Pages 779-793. 48-hour rent-to-read costs only $6.
"The coexistence of natural and supernatural explanations across cultures and development."
I'm backing up a claim that I didn't make to start with but was challenged to show evidence for. The very title of the study already indicates multiple cultures and multiple developmental stages. Mind to show me how do you back your claim of the opposite now?
Eden
-
Oubliette
Eden, the burden of proof is always on the person that made the initial assertion. I didn't do that.
But thanks for the link. Kind of expensive for a 20-ish page paper, but It looks interesting.
-
EdenOne
Nic: See how easily you dismissed miracles when pressed on it?
Surprisingly, you were the first one to have the decency to ask the question directly, so you had a straightforward answer. My experience here lately is that, from the moment I question any atheist / rationalist claim or tenet, I'm targeted as if I were some sort of religious "mole" planted in the atheist tribe. It's both ridiculous and entertaining, but also tiresome and sometimes makes me question why I even bother to ask questions or spark some open debate.
Eden